Delhi Court August 2015 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.
PR. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tupperware India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-10-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29th August 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2140/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2003-04. 2. The question of law that the Revenue seeks to urge is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act were not legally initiated? 3. The Respondent Assessee filed a return of income on 2nd December 2003 showing a loss of Rs. 96,19,890. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act at the return amount. An order for refund of Rs. 20,16,957 was issued. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer ('AO') passed an order recording 'reasons for belief that income has escaped assessment'. In this order the AO noted that in the Audit Report under Section 44AB in Form 3CD, the Statutory Auditor had reported that t...
Krishak Bharat Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), was premised on a news article published in the magazine India Today of 29th July, 1998 reporting that a number of politicians and political parties in occupation of government accommodation allotted to them were in default of payment of electricity, water and telephone charges with respect thereto and that no steps were being taken by the municipal and other governmental agencies for recovery of the said public dues. It was further reported that some politicians and political parties also owed monies to five star hotels run by India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (ITDC), a Public Sector Corporation, for events, functions held therein or for use thereof and that the ITDC, run and managed by bureaucrats under the control of the said politicians, had also not taken any action for recovery of the said dues which were again public monies. Reliefs, in th...
Tajdar Babar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. The petitioners, four in number, were nominated as members of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) as provided under Section 4(1)(d) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (NDMC Act). 2. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by two Notifications dated 05.09.2014 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dissolving the NDMC in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 398(1) and appointing the Chairperson and other members afresh under Section 4(1) of the NDMC Act. 3. NDMC was constituted by Notification dated 18.01.2011 in terms of Section 4 of the NDMC Act and it consisted of (i) the Chairperson appointed under Section 4(1)(a) from amongst the officers of the Central Government; (ii) the Chief Minister, Delhi and a Member of the Legislative Assembly, Delhi as provided under Section 4(1)(b); (iii) five Members from amongst the officers of the Central Government nominated by the Central Government under Section 4(1)(c) and (iv) two other mem...
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
G. Rohini, CJ. CM.No.6353/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2316/2013 CM.No.6352/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2318/2013 CM.No.6354/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2321/2013 CM.No.6387/2015 (u/O 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC in WP(C) No. 2959/2013 1. All these applications are filed seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum to safeguard the rights of the petitioners. 2. The main writ petitions, i.e., W.Ps.(C) No.2316/2013, 2318/2013, 2321/2013 and 2959/2013 are filed questioning the vires of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, as amended by the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, (Act No.27 of 2012), namely, Section 11, Section 31(1)(b) and Section 31D as well as Rules 3(2), 7, 29, 30 and 31 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Rules ?). 3. It is pleaded in the applications for withdrawal that the petitioners came to know th...
M/s. Rana Sugar Ltd. Vs. Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
G. Rohini, CJ. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.01.2014 in WP (C) No.2503 of 2007. The respondent No.3 in the writ petition (M/s Rana Sugar Ltd.) is the appellant before us. 2. The writ petition was filed by M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited (the respondent No.1 herein) with a prayer inter alia to quash the IEM acknowledgement No.1373/SIA/IMO/2006 dated 04.04.2006 issued to respondent No.3 (appellant herein) for establishment of new sugar mill at Village Ameer Khan Ka Mazra, Tehsil Swar, Distt. Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. A direction was also sought to the Union of India to revoke/cancel the IEM acknowledgement No.1373/SIA/IMO/2006 dated 04.04.2006. 3. The said writ petition was allowed as prayed for by the judgment under appeal and aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred. For the sake of convenience, the Appellant and Respondent No.1 herein shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the writ...
Ekta Arora Vs. Ajay Arora and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-07-2015
Suresh Kait, J. 1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seeks directions whereby setting aside the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, (ASJ) in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2007 as far as order on residence is concerned. Consequently, seeks further directions to restore the order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court in her favour. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the said Act') on the ground that she had apprehension of dispossession from her matrimonial home bearing No.A-135, Shanker Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. 3. It is pertinent to note that initially the aforesaid property was in the name of father-in-law of petitioner, late Sh. Rajinder Paul Arora. During his lifetime he bequeathed the property in question by Willdated 06.03.1987 w...
Som Dev Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 16.02.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.46/10 arising out of FIR No. 261/09 PS Subzi Mandi, convicting him for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC, the appellant “ Som Dev has preferred the instant appeal to challenge its legality and correctness. By an order dated 18.02.2012, he was awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs.20,000/-. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 21.05.2009 at around 04.00 p.m. at Nehru Kutiawali Gali, Malka Ganj, Delhi, the appellant committed rape upon X(assumed name). On 09.06.2009, an information was received at Police Control Room vide DD No.21 (Ex.PW-5/A) at 08.50 p.m. to the effect that Const.Som Dev posted at PS Subzi Mandi was sexually abusing a girl for the last three or four months on the false promise to marry. It further informed that Insp.Veena Sharma had obtained Rs.1 lac to suppress the complaint made to her. On receipt of DD No.28A (...
Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. M/s. Delhi Transco Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. The issue 1. These are seven appeals relating to various Assessment Years filed by the Revenue where one substantial question of law arises, and which has been framed by the order dated 18th September 2012 in ITA No. 384 of 2012, relevant to the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2005-06, as under: Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the wheeling charges paid by the Assessee, in the facts of this case, was deductable as it did not amount to fees for technical services within the meaning of Section 194J of the Act.' The BPTA 2. The Respondent Delhi Transco Ltd. ( ˜DTL') entered into Bulk Power Transmission Agreement ( ˜BPTA') on 21st July 2004 with the Power Grid Corporation India Ltd. ( ˜PGCIL'). In one of the preamble clauses of the BPTA, it was recorded that DTL is desirous of receiving energy through power grid transmission system on mutually agreed terms and conditions ?. The BPTA defined several terms including the term wheelingas un...
Commissioner of Income Tax €“ V Vs. Rathi Graphics Technolo ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-06-2015
1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 17th January 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No.2894/Del/2011 and Cross Objection No. 60/Del/2013 relevant to the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 2002-03. 2. In respect of the Respondent/Assessee, a rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ( ˜BIFR') on 1st November 2002. The scheme that was sanctioned was in fact prepared by the Industrial Development Bank of India ( ˜IDBI'), one of the major lenders of the Respondent. On the loans borrowed by the Assessee from IDBI, there was outstanding interest as on 31st March 2001. It was decided in a series of meetings that the IDBI could be allotted 14,30,000 equity shares of Rs.10 each valued at Rs.1.43 crores and the interest to the extent would be taken as having been paid as on 31st March 2002. 3. For the previous...
Veer Service Station and Others Vs. GNCT of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. Introduction 1. The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the constitutional validity of Explanation 2 inserted by the Delhi Value Added Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2012 to Section 2(1) (zd) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 ( ˜DVAT Act') as well as to the amendment made in the return form i.e. Form DVAT-16. 2. In the writ petition filed by the Delhi Petrol Dealers Association (DPDA), 74 of its members who are all running petroleum retail outlets of various oil companies in the National Capital Territory of Delhi have joined in as co-petitioners. Some of them have also filed separate writ petitions for the same reliefs. 3. The Respondents are the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Respondent No.1), Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi (Respondent No.2) and the Additional/Deputy Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, Delhi (Respondent No.3). 4. The members of the DPDA sell petroleum products of oil companies to consumers. The supply...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »