Delhi Court September 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 24 of about 257 results (0.021 seconds)M/S Lea International Limited Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.17/2014 Date of decision:3. d September, 2014 M/S LEA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Appellant Through:Mr.Ved Jain & Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia & Ms. Swati Thapa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL): M/s Lea International Limited, a non-resident, has filed this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dated 11th July, 2013 upholding levy of penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.2. The appeal in question pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06.3. The respondent-assessee a foreign company based in Canada was, during the relevant period, engaged in providing engineering consultancy servi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner Ofincome Tax-i Vs. M/S Bumi Hiway (i) P. Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 03, 2014 + ITA4402014 COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr.Standing Counsel versus M/S BUMI HIWAY (I) P. LTD ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Shashi M.Kapila, Advocate with Mr.R.R.Maurya and Mr.Pravesh Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal by revenue, impugns order dated 09.01.2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal in short) upholding the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting penalty of Rs.14,84,099/- imposed under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act in short).2. Tribunal in the impugned order has specifically records and notices that the Transfer Pricing Officer in his order dated 17.10.2008 had accepted and recorded that required documents were submitted. After discussion with the representative of the respondent assessee no adverse con...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax(C)-iii Vs. Svp Industries Ltd
Court: Delhi
$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: September 03, 2014 + ITA4952013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(C)-III Through: ..... Appellant Mr.N.P.Sahni, Sr.Standing Counsel Versus SVP INDUSTRIES LTD Through: ..... Respondent Mr.M.P.Rastogi, Mr.K.N.Ahuja, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.(ORAL) 1. By order dated 28.04.2014, the following substantial question of law was framed in this appeal, which pertains to the Assessment Year 2004-05:Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that no addition could be made in excess in the value of closing stock of finished goods to the tune of Rs. 3,04,39,626/-, made originally by the AO?.2. The respondent-Assessee during the relevant period was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of alcohol and vanaspati. In addition, the assessee was having rental and interest income.3. As is apparent from the substantial question of law which has been admitted for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax-ii, New Delhi Vs. M/S Ml Outsourcing Servic ...
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No.1255/2011 Reserved on :5. h August, 2014 Date of decision:3. d September, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI ..... Appellant Through Mr. N.P. Sahni, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate. Versus M/S ML OUTSOURCING SERVICES (P) LIMITED.....Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra, Ms. Kavita Jha & Mr. Vivek Bansal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO SANJIV KHANNA, J.: Revenue, through Commissioner of Income Tax-II, has preferred this appeal relating to the Assessment Year 2007-08, on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the services provided by the respondentassessee are covered by Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Notification bearing No.SO890E) dated 26th September, 2000?.2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 27th May, 2011, passed by the Income Tax Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Mahman Singh @ Monu Vs. State Nct of Delhi
Court: Delhi
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 03, 2014 + CRL.A. 201/2012 MAHMAN SINGH @ MONU Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Vivek Sood, Advocate with Mr.Prem Prakash, Mr.Jaideep Tandan and Ms.Jhanavi Mahana, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for the State with SI Govind Singh PS Uttam Nagar CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. Mahman Singh @ Monu has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only); upon realization of the fine the sum has been directed to be paid over to the injured. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC for which he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and pay fine in sum of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), in default of paymen...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Nijhawan Vs. Sushil Kumar Nijhawan and ors.
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:03. d September, 2014 + I.A. No.2166/2014 (Order XII Rule 6 CPC) in CS (OS) No.3048/2011 KAMLA NIJHAWAN Through ..... Plaintiff Mr. Ved Prakash Sharma, Advocate, with Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Advocate and Ms. Shubhani Jain, Advocate. versus SUSHIL KUMAR NIJHAWAN AND ORS. Through ..... Defendants Mr. Manish Vashisht, Advocate and Mr. Dhruv Rohtagi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL1 This is an application under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants on admission.2. A suit for possession, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, mesne profits and damages has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. Plaintiff Smt. Kamla Nijhawan is the grandmother of Defendant No.1 and mother of Defendant No.2. Defendants No.3 and 4 are the government bodies and lessors of property No.13/27, West Patel Naga...
Tag this Judgment!Diageo Brands B. V and ors. Vs. Khoday Breweries Ltd and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on:03. d September, 2014 + I.A. No.16758/ 2010 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and I.A. No.1908/ 2012 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) in CS (OS) No.2510/ 2010 DIAGEO BRANDS B. V AND ORS. Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. C.M. Lall, Advocate with Ms. Nancy Roy, Advocate. versus KHODAY BREWERIES LTD & ORS Through: ..... Defendants Mr. Gopal Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate for D-1 to D-15. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL1 By virtue of this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Plaintiffs seek an ad interim injunction in their favour and against the Defendants in the following terms:(i) From either jointly or severally using or attempting to use or asserting any right to use or applying to register or to maintain the applications, or to register any of the trademarks mentioned in paragraph 20 of the plaint or any other trademark similar to any ...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Kumar and ors Vs. the State of Delhi and ors
Court: Delhi
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3960/2014 VIVEK KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr Yogesh Kumar and Mr P K Sharma, Advs. versus THE STATE OF DELHI & ORS .... Respondents Through Mr O P Saxena, APP for the State with ASI Yuddhavir Singh Ms Sangita Jain, Adv. for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A.13572/2014(exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed off. CRL.M.C. 3960/2014 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been moved by petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.28/2013 under section 498A/406/34 dated 2.9.2013 registered at Police Station Karawal Nagar, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between petitioners and the complainant-Preeti, who is the second respondent.2. Counsel for the State as well counsel for complainant enters appearance and accepts notice.3. The complainant Ms. Preeti is presen...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Avtar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 02, 2014 + CRL.A. 319/2000 RAM AVTAR Represented by: ..... Appellant Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate Versus STATE Represented by: ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(ORAL) 1. Ram Avtar was charged for having poured kerosene oil on his wife Guddi at 3.00 P.M. on March 14, 1995 at their matrimonial house :16. 399E (Second Floor) Street No.V, Padam Singh Road, Bhapa Nagar and thereafter set her on fire. He was also charged for having physically and mentally torture his wife to extract dowry.2. Vide impugned judgment dated November 26, 1999, Ram Avtar has been convicted for having murdered his wife, but has been acquitted of the charge of mentally and physically harassing her wife concerning a dowry demand.3. The learned Trial Court has believed the testimony of Suman PW-20, living in a room adjacent to where Guddi...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
$~8 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 4771/2013 SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: % ..... Respondent Mr. Saqib, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI ORDER0209.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.(ORAL) 1. Rule D.B.2. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to decide inter se seniority amongst the merged Grade of Overseer & BR-II in implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, after inviting objections from the concerned employees and till finalisation of the seniority list, no further promotion should be made from the merged cadre.4. We have heard the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the submissions made by the learned co...
Tag this Judgment!