Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenditure, ESOP funding was deductible from capital gains, and rejected revenue's challenges on commission disallowance, Section 14A, and foreign exchange loss treatment.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenses, ESOP Trust funding was deductible from capital gains, and disallowances under Sections 14A and on export commission were unjustified.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenses, ESOP funding was deductible under Section 48, and disallowances on commissions and foreign exchange losses were unjustified, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-06 v. Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's ruling that payments for trademark use and expertise were revenue expenses, ESOP funding was deductible from capital gains, and disallowances under Sections 14A and foreign exchange losses were unjustified, dismissing the revenue's appeal.
M/S COMFORT INTECH LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
The Delhi High Court quashed the RBI's cancellation of an NBFC's registration for failure to provide a fair hearing, emphasizing the mandatory application of natural justice in administrative actions.
Pam Parmar v. Col Dewan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court enhanced compensation and interest in a death claim where the deceased's income was from investments, awarding loss of estate and increasing amounts for love, affection, and consortium.
Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh
The Supreme Court quashed a delayed FIR and criminal proceedings for dowry death due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, absence of prior FIR, and abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.
Ajay Arjun Singh v. Sharadendu Tiwari
The Supreme Court held that only travel expenses incurred by star campaigners are exempt from election expenses, rejected the conclusive valuation by Election Commission, and allowed striking off of pleadings relating to helicopter travel expenditure while upholding the rest of the election petition pleadings.
Keshav H. Gholve and Anr. v. M/s Thermax Ltd.
The Supreme Court held that a delinquent workman is not entitled to legal representation in a domestic enquiry unless the management engages a lawyer, but may be represented by any employee or trade union representative of their choice.
Kumar Aluminium Ltd v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd
The Supreme Court held that the pre-deposit under section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act is refundable upon disposal of the appeal unless lawfully appropriated or attached, setting aside lower court orders and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors
The Supreme Court quashed Bihar's notification granting Scheduled Tribe status to the Lohar community, reaffirming that only Parliament and the President can specify Scheduled Tribes under Article 342, and upheld prior rulings that Lohars are OBCs, not Scheduled Tribes.
Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
The Supreme Court quashed Bihar's 2016 notification granting Scheduled Tribe status to the Lohar community, reaffirming that Lohars are OBCs, not Scheduled Tribes, and awarded compensation for violation of fundamental rights.
Aditya Birla Finance Ltd v. Vinay Kumar Mehta
Contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with payment and affidavit filing were disposed of as satisfied upon respondents' subsequent compliance.
Vibhas Arora v. Regional Passport Officer
The Delhi High Court held that the biological father's name is not legally mandatory in passport applications and directed issuance of passport without it, mandating software modification to accept such applications.
KRISHAN MURARI SHARMA & SONS v. NEW DELHI MUNCIPAL COUNCIL
The Delhi High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, holding that disputed questions of limitation and procedural compliance are to be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
Shikher Jain v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties in a matrimonial dispute, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
R.L. Kohli v. Murti Bhagwan Jagannathji Maharaj & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the second appeal upholding that a licensee is estopped from disputing the licensor's title and a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable to evict the licensee after license termination.
Mala Bhagat Bali v. State & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the delay condonation application and appeal by the respondent, upheld the validity of the 2012 Will, and granted letters of administration to the petitioner, exempting her from furnishing an administration bond as the sole beneficiary.
Hindpal Singh Jabbal & Ors v. Jasbir Singh & Ors
The Delhi High Court lacks jurisdiction to try a suit below Rs. 2 crores involving cancellation of General Powers of Attorney and Sale deeds as such disputes do not qualify as commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Mohar Singh Meena v. New Delhi Municipal Council
The Delhi High Court set aside the Tribunal's direction to hold a review promotion committee based solely on an affidavit, allowing the petitioner to independently challenge the NDMC's decision.