Delhi Court August 2002 Judgments

Salora International Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 22-02-2001 relating to assessment year 1997-98.2. Ground No. 1 raised in this appeal relates to amount of capital gain.2.1 Relevant facts giving rise to this ground are that assessee, a widely held public limited company, was engaged in the business of manufacture of television sets, components and in the business of export of garments. The assessee company started Panasonic Division in 1993 with technical collaboration agreement with Matsushita Electronic Industrial Company Ltd. ("MEICL" in short) for the manufacture of colour television sets in India. During the previous year relevant to assessment year 1997-98, the year under consideration, the assessee decided to restructure and reorganise the company by spinning off its "Panasonic Division" to Matsushita Television & Audio India Ltd. ("MTAIC" in short) and moved an application before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under Section 394 of the Com...

Sky High Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)258ITR98(Delhi)

1. The appeal has been directed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated February 1, 2002, pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99. Though various grounds of appeal have been raised, all the grounds relate to the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, representing share capital of Rs. 2,00,000 each received from five shareholders.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company which deals in real estates and its development. During the year, the assessee has received the share capital of Rs. 10 lakhs at Rs. 2 lakhs each received from five shareholders. In order to verify the genuineness of the transaction/the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 133(6) to the shareholders. Though these notices were duly served, there was no response from any of them. In the absence of any response from the shareholders, the Assessing Officer treated the sum of Rs. ...

Arvind Kumar S/O Shri Yogender Singh, Arya Pura, Subzi Mandi, Delhi Vs ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 100(2002)DLT381; 2003(3)SLJ363(Delhi)

Vijender Jain, J.1. A very interesting question has arisen in the writ petition. Respondent-Director of Education was to appoint teachers for their schools in Delhi and the task to select teachers was entrusted to Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (for short 'DSSSB'). DSSSB advertised post of teachers that included subject of History in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. The educational qualification as stated in the said advertisement for the purposes of present writ petition, which are relevant, was:- Master Decree or its equivalent in the subject concerned from a recognised University. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner graduated from B.A. (Hons.) History from Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Bihar in 1995 with 64% of marks and thereafter the petitioner did his M.A. in History of Art, from National Museum Institute of History of Art, conservation and Museology, New Delhi (in short 'National Museum Institute' ). 3. It was contended before me by the l...

Dharam Singh S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi Vs. the ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT721

V.S. Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by Dharam Singh (hereinafter described as the appellant) directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Special Judge, Delhi dated 9th November, 2001 and 20th November, 2001 respectively. The learned trial court had held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and by the subsequent order of sentence awarded him rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that on 22nd June, 1998 Sub Inspector Prem Chandra had received a secret information that one person named Dharam Singh who is a drug peddler would come between 4.30 PM and 5.00 PM via Vishnu Garden, Kyala Delhi. He would carry smack. This information was recorded in daily diary No. 15 and copy of which was sent to senior station. The officer in charge, police station informed the Assistant Commissioner of P...

Mr. S. Rama Rao Vs. the Managing Director, Fci and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002(94)FLR206]

Vijender Jain, J. 1.Rule. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging victimisation and mala fide for approaching the Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs . Virpal Singh Chauhan, : AIR1996SC448 held as under:- ' Even if a Schedules Caste/Schedules Tribe candidate is promoted earlier by virtue of rule of reservation roaster than his senior general candidate and the senior general candidate is promoted later to the said higher grade, the general candidate regains his seniority over such earlier promoted Schedules Caste/Schedules Tribe candidate. The earlier promotion of the schedule caste/schedule tribe candidate in such a situation does not confer upon him seniority over the general candidate even though the general candidate is promoted later to that category.' 4. The judgment was delivered by Supreme Court of India on 10th October, 1995. However, the respondent issued a circular to implement the rati...

K.B. Contractors Vs. Engineer-in-chief and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003(1)ARBLR198(Delhi); 100(2002)DLT1; 2002(64)DRJ323

S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has inter alias prayed for the following relief:(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to renew the enlistment of the petitioner for the cyclic period ending 31st December, 2005.2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by us, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the matter in great detail.3. The petitioner was enrolled as Class 'A' contractor with the respondents w.e.f. 11th July, 1989. Its tender limit was enhanced to Rs. 1 crore in the year 1992. The enlistment of the petitioner was renewed up to 31st December, 2000 whereafter, by way of a letter dated 26th November, 1998 it applied for renewal of enlistment but no order was passed for a long time. The petitioner sent reminders on various occasions. By reasons of the impugned order dated 15th May, 2001 it was communicated :'(1) Reference your letter No. ...

Social Jurist Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 99(2002)DLT607

ORDER1. Learned Counsel for the MCD states that the dispensary shall be removed from the school premises on or before 31st January, 2003. Learned Counsel also states that building which was being used for dispensary shall handed over to the school after the same is vacated by MCD.2. Mr. Grover also states that used syringes and other medical waste generated in the dispensary shall be disinfected and disposed of in a condition which does not affect the health of the students in particular and citizens in general and will not be thrown anywhere in the school premises. In view of the statement of learned Counsel for the MCD, there is no ground to keep the petition pending. Accordingly the petition is disposed of in terms of the statement of the learned Counsel for the respondent / MCD....

Rajesh Strips Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC67

1. Though the matter is posted today for hearing the Stay Petition, filed by M/s. Rajesh Strips Ltd., after granting the Stay we take up the appeal itself for disposal with the consent of both the sides since the matter stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vandana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur 2002 (82) ECC 593 (T) (Final Order No. 239/2002-B dated 23.5.2002).2. We heard Shri Ghirnikar, learned Consultant for the Appellants, and Shri M.P Singh, learned DR for the Respondent. The issue involved in the appeal is whether the benefit of exemption provided under Notification No. 50/97-CE dated 1.8.1997 as amended by Notification No.57/97-CE, dated 30.8.97 is available to the excisable goods manufactured by them. The Commissioner, Central Excise, under the impugned Order has disallowed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/97-CE as amended on the ground that the Appellants were not discharging duty liability under Section 3A of the Central Excise ...

Sunil Gulati Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT283TriDel

1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order whereby Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No. DL-4C-8924 was confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs and personal penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs on both the appellants were imposed.2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27-4-97, at New Delhi Railway Station Chaman Lal along with Sunil Gulati was questioned by the Custom authorities and on search of their brief-case foreign currency of different countries valued of Rs. 41/22,050/- was recovered. The statement of Sunil Gulati was recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act and in his statement Sunil Gulati admitted the recovery of the foreign currency from the brief-case and stated that the brief-case will be sent to Calcutta through his Father-in-Law Chaman Lal. He also admitted that foreign currency is the sale proceed of the smuggled gold, given to him by Joginder Pal Singh. Keys of car was also recovered from his possessio...

Sidwal Refrigeration Indus. P. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(83)ECC317

1. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellant M/s. Sidwal Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. in spite of notice. The appellant under their letter dated 31-7-2002 have requested for adjournment as their Counsel had suddenly fallen ill. We observe that the appeal when it was posted for hearing on earlier occasion, the appellants even at that time had requested for adjournment on the same ground that their Counsel had suddenly fallen ill. We, therefore, do not adjourn the matter and take up the appeal itself for disposal after perusing the records and hearing Shri M.P. Singh, ld. Departmental Representative.2. Ld. Departmental Representative mentioned that after receipt of audit report, the Superintendent Central Excise had sent the extract of Para 1 and Para 2 of the audit report to the appellants with the request to deposit the amount of duty as mentioned in the audit paras; that against the said communication they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A...