Delhi Court December 2003 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.
Pragati Construction Co. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD271(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/10/98 of CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi pertaining to 1992-93 assessment year. "1. The appeal order is against the facts of the case and bad in law. 2. The CIT(Appeal) has erred to treat the gain on sale of investment of Rs. 95,772/- as business income. 3. The CIT(Appeal) has erred in disallow the deduction Under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act for Rs. 55,386/-. 4. The CIT(Appeals) has erred to sustain invoking the provisions of Section 145 of Income Tax Act to treat the investment as Stock-in-Trade. 5. The CIT(Appeals) has erred by not dealing to ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest of Rs. 6,979/- out of cost of investment which was incurred during A.Y. : 1986-87 & duly assessed in that year. 6. The CIT(Appeals) has erred to sustain additions on the basis of apprehension." 3. Right at the outset, it was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that ground No. 5 is not pressed by the assessee. As such, the ...
S.C. Parasher, Deputy Director General (Retd.), All India Radio Vs. Un ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT86; 2004(72)DRJ410; [2004(101)FLR42]; 2004(3)SLJ396(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 20th September 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) dismissing his original application being O. A. No. 480 of 2001. 2. The Petitioner retired as Deputy Director General, All India Radio on 31st March 1979. At that time, the Petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-2250. The scale of pay of the post of Deputy Director General was subsequently revised to Rs. 2250-2500 with effect from 13th January 1984. On the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs. 2250-2500 was revised to Rs. 18, 400-22, 400 and the pay scale of Rs. 2000-2250 was revised to Rs. 14, 300-18, 300 with effect from 1st January 1996.3. On 17th December 1998 the Government of India issued a Memorandum on the subject of implementation of Governments decisions on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission relating to retirement benefits. The relev...
Daya Chand-i Vs. National thermal Power Station
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT241; 2004(75)DRJ486; 2004(3)SLJ402(Delhi)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner was employed by the respondent on security duty. On 4.4.1998 he was inflicted the punishment of dismissal from the service. The said order was passed by the respondent pursuant to the power vested in it under Rule 25 of the Standing Orders. Rule reads as under:'25. Special Procedure in Certain Cases--Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order No. 24, the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Standing Order No. 23 in any of the following circumstances:(i) the workman has been convicted on a criminal charge or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial; or(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these Standing Orders; or(iii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the Corporation/company, it is not expedie...
Sh. Abhendra Kumar JaIn Vs. Shri B.K. Gupta and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)398; 108(2003)DLT734; (2004)IILLJ408Del
Vikramajit Sen, J.1. In this Petition it has been alleged that the Respondents have not complied with the directions contained in the Order dated August 3, 2001, whereby Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 5078/2000, reads as follows: ''This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner his entire salary in accordance with law, which is due from 1.11.94. It is stated in the petition that the aforesaid action of the respondents in not making payment of the salary due to the petitioner along with benefits of his increments is illegal and without jurisdiction. Counsel appearing for the respondents however, states that since the service book of the petitioner is with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) thereforee, no salary could be paid to the petitioner in absence of the said service book. I am not impressed by the aforesaid stand of the respondents. The respondents could have collec...
indra Perfumery Co. Thr. Sudershab Oberoi Vs. Presiding Officer and or ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: 109(2004)DLT927; 2004(74)DRJ619; [2004(101)FLR940]; (2004)IILLJ413Del; 2004(3)SLJ78(Delhi)
ORDER1. This matter has been placed before the Division Bench in view of the order dated 6.3.2003 made by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has differed with the view of another Single Bench of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan, 2001 LLR 405.2. The issue involved is as to from which date workman would be entitled to receive wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) namely, whether from the date of award or from the date, writ petition is filed in this Court. Section 17-B of the Act reads as under:'Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts--Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be liable to pay such workman, during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the Hi...
Mrs. Suneel Sodhi and ors. Vs. M.L. Sodhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Delhi99
ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition and mesne profits. The suit primarily concerns property bearing No. B-3/4. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properly in question was a Joint Hindu Undivided Family acquired from ancestral funds. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were late Mr. M.L. Sodhi, in whose name the lease of the property stood and his wife late Smt. Raj Sodhi. Defendant No. 3 was Col. V.K. Sodhi and defendant No. 4 was Mr. A.K. Sodhi. Defendants 1 to 4 have all expired. Mr. M.L. Sodhi died on 18th January, 1989. Defendant No. 2 expired on 7th January, 2002 and defendant No. 3 expired on 29th January, 2003. Defendant No. 4 expired on 4th January, 1996. Plaintiffs are the legal representatives of defendant No. 4.2. By the present applications moved under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC and under Section 151, CPC, the LRs of defendant No. 3 seek to amend the plaint to propound Will dated 18th Sept. 1989 and another registered W...
Usha Vohra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-2003
Reported in: 112(2004)DLT247
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C, for grant of bail in case FIR No. 26/2003 under Sections 406, 420, 120B, IPC P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 11 months : and only charge under Section 420, IPC has been framed against the petitioner, on the allegations of having been cheated to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 14.0 lacs; that out of 34 witnesses cited by the prosecution 3 witnesses have been examined and the trial is bound to take quite some time. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail, submitting that brother-in-law of the petitioner is still absconding. thereforee, if the petitioner is released, there is likelihood of petitioner's absconding and tampering with the evidence.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mx Software Services Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT387TriDel
1. This is an appeal, preferred by the revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal, vide which the commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original regarding classification of the goods, in question (Printer-cum FAX) by classifying the same under heading 8471.60.2. Learned S.D.R. has contended that the machine, in question, is classifiable under heading 8571.21 as adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly rejected that classification. He has relied upon Rule 3 of the Interpretative Rules read with Note 3 to Section XVI.3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.5. We find that the respondents had imported printer-cum-FAX machine having interface with CPU. It can print the matter directly from an ADP or can send the Fax message from ADP. The plea of the revenue that it is classifiable under heading 8517.21 on the ground that the principal function of the machine is facsimile, c...
Kunj Bihari Lal Radhey Shyam Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(166)ELT319TriDel
1. The appellants are challenging the order of the lower authorities whereby a demand of duty has been confirmed against them to the tune of Rs. 1,04,027/-. The demand has been raised on the ground that, the appellants have shown higher amount of processing loss while converting the brass scrap for manufacture of billets, which were again captively consumed in the manufacture of circles which were trimmed to produce trimmed circles and the latter were subsequently cleared for manufacture of utensils. In the operative part of the order-in-original, the Assistant Commissioner has held as under :- "I find the party guilty of the fifth allegation inasmuch as they have claimed melting and processing loss @ 5.8% which is unduly high. There is no reason why trade opinion that firmly holds that such loss varies between 1% and 1.5% should not be relied upon. But, the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice is found to have not allowed any melting or processing loss, whatsoever, hence 1% melting and proce...
Modern Threads (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT435TriDel
2. This is a request for condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the appeal against the order-in-appeal. The ld. Counsel pleads that, the copy of the impugned order was delivered to the Security personnel of the factory which was lying closed. The said copy delivered to the Security personnel, did not reach the authorised personnel of the appellants. On receiving the copy of the impugned order by one Shri O.P. Jain on his visit to factory on 13-9-2003 from the Security personnel the appellants had filed the instant appeal to the Tribunal within ten days therefrom. However, with reference to the initial date of delivery of the order at the factory gate, there is admittedly a delay of 77 days in filing the instant appeal.3. When the matter was first heard by me on 14-11-03, it was noted that, the Consultant had appeared in the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) and it was possible that, the copy of the order would have also gone to the Consultant and passing of the impugned...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »