Delhi Court April 2014 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.
Public Trust, Mumbai and Another Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Environmen ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
P.B. 1. Misc. Application No.70/2014 is filed by S.S.I. (Small Scale Industrialists) seeking grant of re-start industries which have been allegedly closed down by the M.P.C.B. 2. Misc. Application No.71/2014 is filed by M.S.I. (Medium Size Industrialists) for re-start of the industry which is closed down as per order of the M.P.C.B. Common contention in both the Applications is that the Applicants do not discharged polluting effluents in river "Waldhuri" or river "Ulhas"and as such, their activities should not have been stopped by the M.P.C.B. They submit that their applications for allowing them to re-start the industries are not process by the M.P.C.B. nor they have been given hearing and due to consent. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. We cannot give approval nor can we express any opinion on merits about the nature of the effluents discharged by the present industries who have filed Misc. Applications. We may further clarify that it would be unfair to grant time...
Cit Vs. Om Prakash Arora
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DECIDED ON:01. 04.2014 + ITA5392012 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Abhishek Singh Baghel, Advocate. versus OM PRAKASH ARORA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. In this appeal, the revenue contends that the Tribunal (hereafter "ITAT") fell into error in holding that the amount originally brought to tax as business income of the assessee, was short term capital gains as claimed in the returns filed. The following question of law arises in the appeal:Did the ITAT fall into error in endorsing the decision of the CIT (A) that the sum of `8,78,16,545/- represented short term capital gain (for 2007-08) as claimed by the assessee and that it was not business income?. ITA5392012 Page 1 2. The assessee in this case is an in...
- ‹ Prev
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›