Delhi Court July 2003 Judgments

The Asstt. C.i.T. Vs. Pamir International Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee is a merchant exporter. It declared export sales of Rs. 76,19,940 besides receipt of Rs. 6,73,256/- on account of foreign exchange variation. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80HHC on the export turnover of RS. 69,92,408 consisting of FOB value of Rs. 64,32,498 and foreign exchange difference of Rs. 6,73,256. The assessee, therefore, reduced an amount of Rs. 1,13,347 which was not brought to India.3. The assessee also claimed direct cost at Rs. 46,55,340 after deducting Rs. 96,900 on account of the cost relating to export, the proceeds of which were not brought to India. The AO was of the opinion that the foreign exchange variation of Rs. 6,73,256 included proportionate cost of freight and insurance on which deduction u/s 80HHC was not admissible. He accordingly estimated the proportionate freight and insurance in the foreign exchange variation at Rs. 1,07,820...

A.P. Sahgal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89ITD580(Delhi)

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A) dt. 12th March, 1998, whereby penalty of Rs. 94,210 levied under Section 271(l)(c) for the asst. yr. 1990-91 has been upheld. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a managing director of M/s Sehgal Builders (P) Ltd., Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Search operations were conducted by the IT authorities at the premises of the assessee and during the course of the search, his statement was recorded under Section 132(4). Copy of the statement is placed in the paper book filed by the learned counsel at pp. 1-12. At p. 13 is placed the declaration made by the assessee dt. 18th Sept., 1992, of the additional income of Rs. 1,80,000 which has not been disclosed in the return filed for asst.yr. 1990-91. This declaration included the following placed at p. 13 which reads as under : "That I hereby declare under and in accordance with the provisions of Expln. 5 to Section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 the followi...

Madan Lal Kapur Vs. Subhash Lal Kapur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)108; 105(2003)DLT987; 2003(71)DRJ732

Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. The Plaintiff has prayed for the partition of property bearing No.R-565, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as the `suit property') on the grounds that he along with Defendant No.1 are the joint and equal owners thereof. It has been averred that the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 had purchased the undivided half-share each in the said property vide two Sale Deeds dated 21.11.1977. All the parties hereto are brothers. The plaint discloses that Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are working in partnership in the name and style of Messrs. Nawab Packers, New Delhi. Defendant No.1 is stated to have invested the funds of the firm for purchasing the half-share in the suit property and that Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are claiming interest in the said property on the premise of the said investment having been made from the funds of the firm. It is further averred in the plaint that the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 got the Plans sanctioned from the MCD on 27.7.1978 and started ...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Puran Mal and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIAD(Delhi)135; 106(2003)DLT320; 2003RLR576; 2004(1)SLJ184(Delhi)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner management had taken a plea that in case the enquiry proceedings are found to suffer from infirmity, an opportunity be given to the petitioner management to produce the evidence to substantiate the charges leveled against the workman, respondent No.1 herein. The Tribunal in its impugned award dated 3rd December, 1999 has dealt with this aspect which reads as under:-'On merits I may mention that plea of management about opportunity to lead evidence before court for proving charges cannot be accepted because the enquiry has not been set aside on procedural aspect. Rather the same has been found to be unsustainable because the cross-examination of Asstt. Vigilance Inspector and the statement of conductor. Their statement cannot be changed and even if they are changed, the change cannot be believed. Thus, examination of the same witnesses woul...

Mrs. R. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIAD(Delhi)335; 109(2004)DLT634; 2003(71)DRJ32

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is in respect of allotment of flats by DDA for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) category under the 6th Self-Financing Scheme. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the scheme and in particular paragraph 5 thereof provides for a reservation of 25% of the flats for the persons belonging to SC/ST category, the draw of flats ought to have been done not in a composite manner but after segregating 17.5% for SC applicants and 7.5% for ST applicants. Paragraph 5 of the said scheme reads as under:-'RESERVATION:The following percentage of reservation will be made: (i) 25% of the flats for the persons belonging to SC/ST(ii) 1% of the flats for physically handicapped persons(iii) 1% for war-widows(iv) 1% for ex-servicemen. Delhi Development Authority, however, reserves the right to make other reservations for any other category/categories.If the requisite number of applications are not received from the above m...

Mohd. Abdul Samad Vs. State (Nct) of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004IAD(Delhi)505; 108(2003)DLT237; 2003(71)DRJ542; 2004(1)JCC10

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.568/2001, P.S.Shakarpur, Delhi, u/Ss.3, 5 & 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (for short 'O.S.Act').2. Prosecution case in brief is that petitioner was working as assistant in the Naval Headquarter; on 1.11.2001 at 6:00 p.m. petitioner along with Francis Prakash were arrested at Shakarpur near red light crossing, Vikas Marg, Delhi, while they were going to pass certain classified documents to one Gulam Shabir Khan, a Pakistani national, working in Pakistan High Commission; from their possession restricted documents were recovered, pertaining to defense. Thereafter during investigations restricted documents were also recovered from his residence and from office table of the petitioner. After investigation challan has been filed; petitioner filed a revision petition against the order passed by the trial court dismissing his application under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, at the...

Hari Singh Vs. the State of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003VIIIAD(Delhi)538; 2003(71)DRJ545; 2004(1)JCC12

S.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is a third petition u/s 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.428/2001 u/Ss. 420/466/468/471 IPC, P.S. P.S. Darya Ganj. 2. The petitioner's first application for grant of anticipatory bail in this Court, Crl.M(M)No.3571/03 was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2003 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P.Dwivedi, holding as under: 'Petitioner is alleged to have misused forged order purporting to have been passed by Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, during the investigation, petitioner has handed over a copy of said order to the Police. Obviously, it is to be ascertained during the investigations from which source to procured the forged order. This will required, custodial investigation.' 3. Thereafter petitioner moved second application for grant of anticipatory bail, being Crl.M.(M).No.748/2003, which came to be dismissed on 20.5.2003 on the ground that his earlier application for same relief had already been dismissed. The petitioner has not yet surrendered. P...

Shri Anek Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2004(2)SLJ510(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J. 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order, dated 14 February 2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No.1012/96. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed petitioner's original application, wherein he had assailed the order of removal from service passed against him. 2. Background facts in brief are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Station Master in the Northern Railway and was promoted as Sr.Assistant Station Master in the year 1981. While working as Assistant Station Master at Hardwaganj, he was served with a charge memo, alleging: (i) misbehavior with the Station Master; (ii) unauthorised absence from duty from 2 November 1982 to 15 November 1982 and (iii) malingering from duty on 2 November 1982. The Inquiry Officer, appointed under the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 for holding an inquiry into the charges, found that charge of misbehavior was not subst...

Piping and Energy Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Lt ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 22.2.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1338/1998 - entitled M/s. Piping and Energy Products Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant being a Private Limited Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act had obtained Money insurance Policy from the respondent bearing No. 48/56/97 for the period from midnight 25.4.1997 to midnight 24.4.1998 on payment of requisite premium. However, during the night of 6/7 August, 1997 between 6.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. there was a theft/burglary at the premises of the appellant at Z-18, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi and sum of Rs. 6,210/- was removed from the drawer of the table and a further sum of...

Cce Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC348Tri(Delhi)

1. The common issue is involved in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals are taken up for hearing together. The Revenue filed these appeals against the orders in appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that press-mud is only residual waste and is not excisable final products, Therefore, the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not applicable. Similar observation was made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal in the case of Kichha Sugar Co.Ltd. in respect of 'Bagasse'.2. The contention of the Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) held that press-mud and Bagasse are only waste and are not marketable commodity, therefore, are not excisable. The press-mud and Bagasse are excisable goods, hence, are covered under the provisions of Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944.Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut the Tribunal held that the press-mud is waste left during the manufacturing of sugar and will not attract the ...