Delhi Court September 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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2015
Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act'), has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company (hereafter the 'Assessee') impugning an order dated 22nd July, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the 'Tribunal') in ITA No. 3910/Del/2007. The said appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging an order dated 16th August, 2007 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter 'CIT(A)'] in Appeal no. 170/2006-07 whereby the appeal filed by the Assessee against the assessment order dated 25th January, 2007 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereafter 'the AO') for the assessment year 2004-05, was dismissed. 2. By an order dated 10th July, 2013, this Court admitted this appeal and framed the following questions of law for consideration: ” "(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the addition on account of income arising on sale of investments in spite of the fact...
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I Vs. Chetan Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-15-2015
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 21st June 2013, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1891/Del/2012 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2001-2002. Question of law 2. Admit. The question of law framed for consideration is: Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that since notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) was not served on the Assessee in accordance with law, the re-assessment made consequent thereto was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed? Background facts 3. The Assessee, showing his address as C/o Jagat Theatre, Chandigarh ?, filed a return of income for AY 2001-2002 with the Income Tax Range-2, Chandigarh on 11th October, 2001 disclosing an income of Rs.6,47,425. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and an acknowledgement issued on 5th January, 2002. 4. Information was received from the Additional Director of Income Tax Investigation (ADIT) Unit (VI), New D...
Avinash Gupta Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2015
1. The petition impugns the decision dated 9th September, 2015 of the Government of India refusing to extend the date prescribed of 30th September, 2015 for filing Income Tax Return of entities whose accounts are required to be audited. 2. The petitioners do not disclose any cause of action in their favour. Rather, in para 6 of the petition, it is pleaded that the petition is in the nature of public interest. However, the petition is not drafted as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and does not comply with the rules for filing a petition in public interest. 3. The counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a PIL. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. No Costs....
New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Prominent Hotels Limited
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2015
1. The appellant, NDMC, has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd November, 2013 whereby the Trial Court has decreed the respondent's suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. 2. Factual matrix 2.1. NDMC invited tenders for licence of plot No.37, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi measuring 0.66 acres for the construction and commissioning of a youth hostel to meet the requirement of ASIAD games in 1982. 2.2. M/s P.S.J. Housing Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. submitted the highest bid, which was accepted by NDMC and a licence deed dated 4th November, 1981 was executed by NDMC in favour of M/s. P.S.J. Housing Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. In terms of clause 22 of the licence deed dated 4th November, 1981, M/s. PSJ Housing Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. incorporated a public company, M/s.Prominent Hotels Ltd. With the object of taking over the youth hostel. 2.3. On 16th July, 1982, NDMC executed a licence deed dated 16th July, 1982 in favour of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd. (hereinaf...
Pankaj Prakash Vs. The State and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-2015
1. Vide present petition, petitioner seeks direction to set aside the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate “ 03, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on a protest petition filed by a private third party i.e. Sh B. K. Periwal in FIR No.81/2008 registered at police station Amar Colony, New Delhi. 2. Further seeks direction to set aside the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge “ 02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.11/2014. 3. The brief facts are that on 05.06.2007, respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the police station Amar Colony, New Delhi wherein he alleged that the seal of leased premises bearing No.F-36, Second Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi was removed by the petitioner and the petitioner has stolen the electricity meter. Also stated that the leased premises was given for residence purpose, but was used for office purpose by the petitioner. The said compl...
M/s. Indian Railway Finance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Yatender Kumar Sha ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. CM No.14101/2013 in LPA No.502/2013 CM No.14773/2013 in LPA No.503/2013 1. Since while deciding LPA No.503/2013 we would be taking note of such documents which are relevant and would be relied upon by learned counsel for the Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd., and have prayed to be taken on record as additional documents in CM No.14773/2013, we allow said application. Similarly while deciding LPA No.502/2013 we would be taking note of such documents which are relevant and reference has been made thereto in the arguments by learned counsel for Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. and have prayed to be taken on record as additional documents in CM No.14101/2013, we allow said application. LPA Nos.502/2013, 710/2013, 503/2013 and 316/2014 1. Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. generates revenue through fixed term bonds. The revenue is used to augment the rolling stock of Indian Railways. Of necessity, the Corporation engages share transfer agents who main...
Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Ltd. and Another Vs. Po ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-2015
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 1. This common judgment will dispose of two cross appeals- one preferred by the Power Grid Corporation of India (PGC)- i.e FAO (OS) 460/2011 and the other, by Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Ltd ( Klen ?) “ FAO (OS) 654/2010. Both are directed against different findings of the Learned Single Judge rendered in OMP 262/2003 (by PGC) and OMP 88/2006- by Klen. 2. The facts necessary to decide the two appeals are that on 10.01.1995 PGC issued a Letter of Award to Klen for supply of line material (Bersimis Conductors and Earth wires) which was to be used by the contractors of PGC, i.e M/s Cobra, towards erection of towers and stringing, as part of the larger World Bank funded project of power evacuation from Jammu and Kashmir to other beneficiary neighboring states. In terms of the contract, the supplies were to be completed within 24 months, i.e by 10.01.1997. PGC contended that the delivery time was extended; firstly by a year. This was without pre...
Rajbir Singh (Since Deceased Through Lrs.) Vs. Delhi Transport Corpora ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-08-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be appropriate to note the legal position in relation to the scope of adjudication of an application for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, 1947 which provides as under: 33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.- (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall- (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such dispute, sav...
Abid and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2015
R.K. Gauba, J. 1. The six appellants before us stood trial in Sessions Case No.32/14 arising out of FIR 427/08 of Police Station, New Friends Colony on the charge for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of Mohd. Anwar son of Mohd. Shahid, under Sections 307/34 IPC for attempted murder of Mohd. Bilal and Mohd. Aslam (PW-15) and under Sections 323/34 IPC for voluntarily causing injuries to Joshna Begum (PW-3) and Shilpi (PW-12) in the course of an incident that statedly occurred at about 8.30 PM on 01.07.2008 in front of shop of Bilal, Indira Gandhi Camp, Taimur Nagar, New Delhi. By judgment dated 07.11.2014 of the Additional Sessions Judge, 02-South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, they have been held guilty and convicted, as charged. By order dated 20.11.2014 of the learned trial judge, they have been awarded imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302/34 I...
Dr. Y.S. Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-07-2015
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. We had heard arguments on the issue whether the petitioner has a locus-standi to maintain the instant writ petition in which the petitioner proclaims to be espousing a public interest. On July 29, 2015 it was recorded that respondents No.4 and 5 desired to challenge the locus standi of the petitioner on account of he having a personal interest in the litigation. Said respondents were permitted to file an affidavit along with such material on which they relied having a bearing on the right of the petitioner to maintain the present petition espousing a public cause. Necessary affidavit has been filed by respondent No.4 to which a response has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Prayers made in the writ petition are as under:- (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order in public interest directing respondents 1,2 and 3 to make appropriate c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »