Delhi Court January 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. India Glycols Ltd. and Another Vs. Cce, Meerut-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
D.N. PANDA Neither show cause notice nor adjudication order has made any attempt to find out various expenses to give rise to the aggregate cenvat credit of Rs.1,53,710/-. Only the proceeding has been concluded in summary manner. 2. Shri Rajesh Kumar ld. Counsel says that the pollution Control Board has required appellant to maintain a green belt of adequate width and density for its premises. As a result of that the expenses are incurred. He supports his argument relying on the letter dated 24th June, 2004 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest. The submission of appellant appears to have sound reason and that needs to be tested threadbare. 3. Without summary disposal both the authority below did not make any effort to examine each and every element of the constituents aggregating to Rs.1,53,710/- to reach to a rational conclusion. Therefore, matter is remanded to ld. Adjudicating authority to consider grievance of the appellant in the light of letter of Ministry of Environment ...
M/S Integra Capital Management Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM 1. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VIII, dated 28.2.2011 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. Brief facts:- The assessee is a company. It filed its return of income on 2.12.2003 declaring a loss of Rs.1,41,74,626/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 9.3.2004. Thereafter the assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed on 28th February, 2006 accepting the loss returned. 3. On 29.2.2008 notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)_IV, New Delhi. Thereafter an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28.3.2008 setting aside the order under Section 2 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dt. 28.2.2006 and the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of expenditure incurred in relation to an Insurance portal and decide the issue afresh as per law. Insurance portal in ques...
Acit and Another Vs. M/S. True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
B.C. Meena, Accountant Member 1. The revenue has filed ITA No.1694/Del/2012 and the assessee has preferred Cross Objection No.247/Del/2012 against this appeal. The assessee has also filed ITA No.2092/Del/2012 on certain issues against the order of CIT (A) dated 31.01.2012. The grounds of appeal taken in these three matters are as under:- "1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.89,51,418/- (Rs.47,23,372/- in respect of M/s Omway Builders Pvt. Ltd., Rs.33,27,337/- in respect of M/s Unison Estate Pvt. Ltd., RS.8,72,659/- in respect of M/s Vardhman Associates Pvt. Ltd and Rs.28,050/- in respect of Shree Ganesh Estate) out of the total addition of Rs.95,50,548/- made by the Assessing officer in respect of disallowance of commission by admitting additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of ...
Lt Col (Dr.) Dibyendu Pal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-04-2013
LT. GEN. M.L. NAIDU, MEMBER 1. This writ petition being WP(C) No.7823 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner before the Honble High Court of Delhi which has been transferred to this Tribunal after its formation on 24.11.2009 and registered as TA No.400 of 2009. 2. The petitioner vide this petition has prayed for striking down the Special Army Order (SAO) 8/S/91 being arbitrary, unreasonable and thus unconstitutional. He has also sought quashing of the order dated 01.12.2008 passed by the Central Government rejecting his statutory complaint. He has further sought that he be reconsidered with retrospective effect from 27.12.1997 to the rank of Selection Grade of Full Colonel. 3. The petitioner was commissioned into the Army Medical Corps on 20.04.1986 as a Permanent Regular Commission Officer after having passed his MBBS Degree from National Medical College, Calcutta. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained specialisation as a Gynaecologist in 1990. The petitioner has alleged that initially h...
Yogesh JaIn and anr Vs. Sudha JaIn and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
$ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 384/2012 YOGESH JAIN & ANR ..... Appellants VERSUS SUDHA JAIN & OTHERS ..... Respondents Date of Decision:3. d January, 2013 % Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : : Mr. Subhashish Mohanty, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.RFA 384/2012 & CM No.15639/2012 (for leading additional evidence) 1. The appellants were the defendants in the court below. They have impugned the judgment and decree passed by that court on 9 th May, 2012, whereby the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed granting them possession of the suit property whilst at the same time, declaring a General Power of Attorney; Agreement to Sell; Affidavit; a Receipt; Possession Letter and a Will dated 13th August, 2003, relied upon by the appellants to establish their title to the suit property, to be, forged and fabricated, null and void, and having no effect in law. In addition, plai...
Dayal D. Shahdadpuri Vs. C.N.A. Exports Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Pronounced on: January 3, 2013 I.A. Nos.4985/11, 8812/11 & 16842/11 in CS (OS) No.118 of 2007 Dayal D. Shahdadpuri Represented by: ..... Plaintiff Mr. Sujoy Kumar, Adv. versus C.N.A. Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .... Defendants Represented by: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Suresh Singh & Mr. Rajat Navet, Advs. for D-1 to D-4. Ms. Tara V. Ganju, Adv. for D-5. Mr. Amit Sibal, Adv. with Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Adv. for D-6. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. with Ms. Mamta Gautam, Adv. for D-7. AND I.A. No.737/2011, I.A. No.16086/2009 & I.A. No.12310/2010 in CS(OS) No. 556 of 2008 Smt. Jamna Datwani And Anr. ..... Plaintiffs Represented by: Ms. Tara V. Ganju, Adv. with Ms. Aruna Jain, Ms. K. Sinha & Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Advs. versus Sh. Anand Datwani & Ors. Represented by: CS(OS) No.118/2007 & CS(OS) No.556/2008 ..... Defendants Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. for D-2. Mr. Amit Sibal, Adv. with Ms. Ferida Satarawala & Ms....
Aakash Juvenile Through His Father Malkhan Singh Vs. N.C.T of Delhi an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d January, 2013 + CRL. REV. P. 510/2012 AAKASH Juvenile through his father MALKHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravinder Narayan, Adv. with Mr. Mukul Kumar Gupta, Adv. versus N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) 1. By way of this Revision Petition, the Petitioner Aakash takes exception to the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Dwarka whereby the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) holding the Petitioner Aakash to be a juvenile was reversed and the Petitioner was held not to be a juvenile.2. FIR No.63/2011 under Section 363/366/376(2)(f)/308 IPC, Police Station Sagarpur was registered against the Petitioner. The Petitioner was declared to be a juvenile by an order dated 08.04.2011, while the case was at the stage of defences evi...
L.L.Satyanarayana Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
$~R-22&23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 03, 2013 + WP(C) 3308/2001 K.K.BHARDWAJ & ORS. Represented by: Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate. ..... Petitioners versus THE SECRETARY, MHA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate for R-1&2. None for R-3&4. AND WP(C) 6818/2001 L.L.SATYANARAYANA Represented by: None. ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate for R-1, 2 & 3. Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate for R-8. None for other respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Whereas orders under challenge in WP(C) No.3308/2001 are dated November 02, 2000 and December 22, 2000; the original order and the order dismissing application seeking review. Orders under challenge in WP(C) No.6818/2001 are dated December 14, 2000 and February 14, 2001 i.e. the original order and the order dismissing the application seeking revie...
RahisuddIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:3. d January, 2013 + CRL. REV. P. 681/2012 RAHISUDDIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Yogesh Kumar Adv. with Mr. Islam Khan, Adv. versus STATE Through: ..... Respondents Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL JUDGMENT G. P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL) CRL. REV. P. 681/2012 and Crl.M (B) 2166/2012 1. The Petitioner was prosecuted prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 341/509/506 IPC arising out of FIR No.910/2006 of Police Station Mehrauli. By an order dated 31.07.2012 he was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 509 IPC. The Petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of `8,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.2. On Appeal, the learned Additional...
Ramesh Chand Aggarwal and ors. Vs. Mcd and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-03-2013
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:03. 01.2013 + RFA(OS) 141/2012, C.M. APPL. 21364/2012 (for stay) RAMESH CHAND AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Appellants Through : Sh. Sanjay Manchanda, Advocate, for plaintiff no.1. Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Sh. P.S. Bindra and Sh. Sanjay Manchanda, Advocates. versus MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Rahul Kumar, Advocate, for MCD. Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate. Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocate, for Resp. No.3. Sh. B.L. Chawla, Advocate. Sh. P.S. Taneja, in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. Issue notice.2. Sh. Rahul Kumar, Sh. Rahul Gupta, Ms. Rani Chhabra and Sh. B.L. Chawla, Advocates accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel agree that the matter can be disposed of finally.3. The present appeal impugns a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing Civil Suit 774/2001. The occasion for del...
- ‹ Prev
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- Next ›
- Last »