Court : Delhi
Reported in : 76(1998)DLT554
K. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The writ petitioner was removed from service by order dated the 8th of July, 1994. The order reads as under:'1. WHEREAS. a Show Cause Notice No. Air HQ/21641/16068/P01(F) dated 12 Feb. 93 was served on Sqn.Ldr.A.Gupta (16068) F(P) requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the service under Section 19, Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 17, Air Force Rules, 1969 for avoiding flying duties and showing lack of confidence in flying. 2. AND WHEREAS, the said Sqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068) F(P), submitted a reply to the said Show Cause Notice bearing reference No. 325/ 16068/PF/12 dated 16 Apr., 93 urging therein his reasons against the proposed action. 3. AND WHEREAS, his reply to the said Show Cause Notice has not been found satisfactory. 4. NOW thereforeE, the Central Government after considering the reply of Sqn. Ldr. A. Gupta (16068) F(P) to the said Show Cause Notice and the recommendations of the Chief of the Air Staff, in exercise of the pow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998(47)DRJ652
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The writ petitioner was removed from service by order dated the 8th of July, 1994. The order reads as under:- '1. WHEREAS, a Show Cause Notice No. Air HQ/21641/16068/P01(F) dated 12 Feb 93 was served on Sqn.Ldr.A.Gupta (16068) F(P) requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the service under Section 19, Air Force Act, 1950 read with Rule 17 Air Force Rules, 1969 for avoiding flying duties and showing lack of confidence in flying. 2. AND WHEREAS, the said Sqn Ldr A Gupta (16068) F(P), submitted a reply to the said Show Cause Notice bearing reference No. 325/16068/PF/12 dated 16 Apr 93 urging therein his reasons against the proposed action. . 3. AND WHEREAS, his reply to the said Show Cause Notice has not been found satisfactory. 4. NOW thereforeE, the Central Govt after considering the reply of Sqn Ldr A Gupta (16068) F(P) to the said Show Cause Notice and the recommendations of the Chief of the Air Staff, in exercise of the powers confer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)292; 75(1998)DLT50; 1998(47)DRJ185
A.K. Srivastava, J.1. This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC making a prayer that defendant No.3, namely, M/s. Liberty Sales Services be restrained from handing over the peaceful and vacant possession or removing its stock, furniture, ornamental and decorative items from the shop bearing No.E-27/1, Connaught Place, New Delhi. This application has been moved in Civil Suit No.1268/98 which was instituted during vacations and was taken up by the Vacation Judge, Hon'ble Justice K.Ramamoorthy on 26th June. 1998.2. This I.A was taken up for consideration and notice was issued for 9.7.1998. Mr.Maninder Singh, Advocate appeared for defendants No.1 and 2 and the following order was passed by Hon'ble the Vacation Judge on 26th June, 1998:-'Mr.Maninder Singh brought to my notice the order passed by the Division Bench in the matter between his clients and his alleged licensee.According to the learned counsel the Division Bench had directed the handing over po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]234ITR335(Delhi)
Head Note:INCOME TAXCompany--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Effect of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement in the case of foreign company Ratio & Held :Article 7 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Netherland only limits quantum of taxable income of applicant-company and applicant remains liable to pay tax on its business profits attributable to its permanent establishment in India and, thereforee, applicant company would not go outside the purview of section 115JA by virtue of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Application :Also to current assessment year. A.Y. :1997-98 Dt.Ruling. :20-7-1998Income Tax Act 1961 s.115JA Company--APPLICABILITY OF S. 115JA--Foreign company--Non-applicability of some of provisions of s. 115JA Ratio :Non-applicability of some of the provisions of section 115JA in toto to a foreign company cannot be a ground to exempt foreign company altogether from purview of section 115JA. Held :In the case of Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Ross minste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas265(Delhi); 1999CriLJ2433; 74(1998)DLT537; 1998(46)DRJ506
Anil Dev Singh, J.1. These revisions are directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated January 30, 1996, whereby the appeals against the order dated July 17, 1995, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, convicting the revisionist under Section 162 read with Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), were dismissed.2. The Registrar of Companies filed complaints against the petitioner, Shri Moti Lal Bhatia and Smt. Suman Bhatia, directors of Nirman Chit Fund Private Ltd. in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on June 11, 1992, under Sections 159 and 162 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner and the above said two others did not submit the annual returns and balance-sheets of the company, Nirman Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., for the years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 within the prescribed period thus flouting the provisions of Sections 159, 220 read with Section 162 of the Act. The lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]234ITR842(Delhi)
1. Arrival of counsel for the respondent was awaited up to 12.25 p.m. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars referred to in the last order are not available with the Department and, thereforee, in terms of the last order, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Perused the contents of paragraph 7 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue is arising for decision in several other matters, though in the case at hand the issue was not pursued further by filing a reference relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, yet the right of the petitioner to move this court for the next year of assessment, i.e., 1986-87, is not taken away inasmuch as every year's assessment proceeding is an independent proceeding in the eye of law and the rule of rest judicata is not in terms applicable to the tax assessment proceedings, (see CIT v. M. Chawla : [1989]177ITR299(Delhi) 3. As the question which is sought to be referred is a question of law...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (1998)62TTJ(Del)666
ORDERR. Swarup, VPThese appeals, by the assessee, are directed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). For the sake of convenience all the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.ITA Nos. 4872 & 4873/Del/19942. The only common ground raised in these appeals is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in upholding the assessment on protective basis in the hands of the assessed HUF as against the assessor's claim that assessment ought to have been completed on substantive basis in the hands of the HUF.3. The facts, in brief, are that for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 the assessed filed returns in the status of HUF declaring incomes of Rs. 12,220 and Rs. 12,250 respectively. In response to notice issued under section 143(2) by the assessing officer it was stated on behalf of the assessed that the HUF of S. K. Gupta came into existence as a result of gift of Rs. 5,000 made by Suraj Bhan, father of S. K. Gupta in 1979 on the occasion of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT564TriDel
1. The issue involved in the appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification 43/88 is available to a product which is pesticide intermediate or not.2. Shri A.K. Madan, learned SDR submitted that Notification No. 43/88, dated 1-3-1988 exempts products falling under Chapter 28 or 29 of the Schedule to the CETA if they are used in the manufacture of goods falling under sub-heading 3808.10 of the Tariff, the respondents are manufacturing phosphorous trichlorides which is used captively in the manufacture of trimethyl phosphite falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff. As trimethyl phosphite is not falling under sub-heading 3808.10, the benefit of Notification is not available to the respondents as the conditions of the Notification have not been satisfied.3. Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate, submitted that trimethyl phosphite manufactured by them is being cleared following Chapter X procedure for manufacture of insecticides/pesticides falling under s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT176TriDel
1. This is an application for early hearing of a customs appeal filed in October, 1997. Customs appeals filed in 1995 are being included in the hearing list presently. The car imported has been cleared, though at the enhanced value. There are two submissions made on behalf of the appellant, they are that the appellant is old and sick and the car cannot be sold for three years from the date of import and the excess duty paid by the appellant is blocked up with the Department. We questioned the appellant who is present who complained of back pain and defective eye sight. He also stated that several members of his family died before the age of 65. The appellant is now 62 years old. We do not think this provides a ground for early hearing. The vehicle has already been cleared.2. In the above circumstances, we do not think any ground has been made out for early hearing at this stage. It is open to the appellant to renew the request after six months. The application is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(111)ELT637TriDel
1. Heard both sides. The issue involved herein is whether the benefit of Modvat credit on welding electrodes used in manufacture of the capital goods inside the factory is permissible under Rule 57D(2) or not. The respondents herein had made a declaration for the said goods under Rule 57G declaring the aforesaid purpose of the inputs.2. A show cause notice was, however, issued on 3-4-1996 that the Modvat credit on the inputs under Rule 57A was not permissible inasmuch as it is not used in relation to paper but it is used in fabrication of recausticising plant.3.1 On adjudication, the original authority denied the Modvat holding as follows :- "(2) Credit taken on welding electrode :- As submitted by the assessee in their written reply of show cause notice welding electrodes has been used for electric welding in fabrication of recausticising plant. As per case of M/s. Quality Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector -1995 (75) E.L.T. 17 (S.C). The recaustisising plant is not goods as the same ...
Tag this Judgment!