Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No.4107/2008 Reserved on:23. d July, 2013 Date of Decision:13. h November, 2013 % G.D. BUILDERS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Varun Prabhakar & Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocates. versus UOI AND ANR. .. Respondents Through Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Mukesh Anand and Mr. Ashish Virmani for UOI/R-1. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. + W.P.(C) 10226/2009 RAJ FURNITURE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Varun Prabhakar & Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocates. versus UOI + .. Respondent Through Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Mukesh Anand and Mr. Ashish Virmani for UOI/R-1. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. W.P.(C) 4127/2008 CLARION PROPERTIES LTD. ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.K. Mittal, Mr. Varun Prabhakar & Mr. Varun Gaba, Advocates. Versus Page 1 of 51 UOI AND ORS. .... Respondents Through Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, Addl. Solicito...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2010]187TAXMAN111(Delhi)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. All these appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the same assessee, viz., Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. There are various common issues, which have arisen in these appeals relating to different Assessment Years. It is for this reason all these cases were grouped together, though the arguments were heard specifically on all the issues involved in these appeals. We now proceed to discuss and decide these issues one by one.2. ITA No. 532 of 2006We may mentions at the outset that some of the issues raised in this appeal as well as other connected appeals have already been decided in ITA No. 1018 of 2005. Leaving those issues aside, the learned Counsel for the parties accepted the position that the questions that survive for consideration in this appeal on which notice was issued, is as under:1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the amount of Rs. 3.76 Crores (wrongly written by ITAT as 3.76 lacs) being capital expen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The petitioners, as pro-bono publico, have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short the Commission), the respondent No.2 herein, to issue the tariff order approved by it on 28th/29th April, 2010 and pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. It is profitable to note here that various assertions have been made with regard to the issues relating to the finalization of the tariff by the Commission under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for brevity 2003 Act), the illegality committed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) in asking the Commission not to issue the tariff and further how the consumers have been affected by the non-issuance of the tariff order. In the course of the pendency of the writ petition, there was impleadment of certain respondents, namely, BSE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning separate notices of default assessment dated 5th August, 2013 whereby the Petitioner's entire turnover for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 has been assessed to Value Added Tax (VAT) and penalty and interest has also been levied in addition to the tax assessed. The Petitioner also impugns an order dated 7th February, 2014 as rectified by an order dated 13th February, 2014 passed by the Special Commissioner (VAT) directing a deposit of Rs.3,14,00,000/- - being 20% of the disputed demand of VAT and interest for the period 2011-12 - as a pre-condition for hearing the objections filed by the Petitioner in respect of demand raised for the financial year 2011-12. In addition, the Petitioner also impugns a ruling dated 6th April, 2011 made by the Commissioner (VAT) under Section 85 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Mr. Amarjit Chopra, President and Member of the Central Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19th May, 2009 passed by the Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) dismissing/rejecting the institutes application under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) for the assessment year 2009-10 onwards. The petitioners have prayed that the respondent should be directed to recognize and grant approval to the petitioner institute under the aforesaid Section for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and onwards. 2. On 7th May, 2008, the petitioner institute had filed an application in form No. 56 for grant of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 160(2009)DLT775
Kailash Gambhir, J.The miracle is not to fly in air or to travel to the moon, but to walk on the earth', says a Chinese proverb.1. The increase in vehicular traffic alongwith the population of Delhi has grown much faster since the time Maruti Company has flooded the market with their brand of cars for the middle class of the society. Although the capital of the country is dominated by the middle and lower class, but the presence of rich and affluent is no less visible when one looks at the roads of Delhi to find large number of high class luxurious cars, including the Mercedes and BMWs. The traditional mode of travelling by tangas, bicycles, rickshaws, two wheelers is coming to gradual extinct except in the interiors of some localities.2. Except for a few hours between midnight to dawn, one cannot see even a patch of earth but vehicles and vehicles either running or stranded in traffic jams on Delhi roads. This ever increasing vehicular explosion in traffic is due to the rapid increase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. 1. The common questions involved in these proceedings which have been heard together are:- (I) Whether under Section 20(1) of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals(Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 (CAG Act) the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) can be requested to undertake the audit of the accounts of the Distribution Companies (DISCOMs), entrusted with the work of distribution and retail of electricity in Delhi pursuant to the unbundling of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB), which are public-private partnerships in which 51% shares are held by private entities and 49% shares are held by a company wholly owned by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). (II) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, whether the said decision to request such audit is to be of the Administrator, acting on his own, or on the aid and advice of the Council of the Ministers of GNCTD. (III) If the answer to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on :22. d May, 2018 Date of decision :4. h August, 2018 + W.P.(C) 8125/2016 & CM No.3362/2016 FEDERATION OF OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION (REGD.) versus LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS ....... Petitioner + W.P.(C) 12088/2016 & CM Nos.9316/2017, 10386/2017 & 14678/2017 APEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY OF NCT DELHI ........ Petitioner LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR ........ RESPONDENTS versus versus DELHI FACTORY OWNERS' FEDERATION ....... Petitioner LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR. + W.P.(C) 2658/2017 & CM No.11560/2017 + W.P.(C) 3360/2017 & CM No.14703/2017 ....... RESPONDENTS AUTOMOBILE TRADERS ASSOCIATION OF DELHI LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR ........ RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner versus + W.P.(C) 3385/2017 & CM No.14800/2017 + W.P.(C) 3684/2017 & CM No.16236/2017 versus COLORWHEEL LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ANR ....... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PVT LTD ........ Petitioner versus WP(C) 521...
Tag this Judgment!