Delhi Court August 2005 Judgments

Mrs. Veena Sharma and ors. Vs. the Manager, No. 1 Air Force School and ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005(84)DRJ306

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. These petitioners claim a common relief of grant of pay scale and allowances applicable to teachers of corresponding status in other schools recognized and administered by Directorate of Education, from the date of recognition of the first respondent (hereinafter called 'the School'). Further directions requiring the school to supply to each of the petitioners copies of statement of their Provident Fund Account and also to disclose the amounts of contribution standing to their credit, their entitlements to leave etc have been claimed. 2. The School was established in 1969, apparently to cater to the educational need of children of defense personnel of certain units of the Indian Air Force. The petitioners have been working in the school for varying periods of time between about 2 years to 27 years. All the petitioners except five are drawing salary in the Pay Scale of Rs. 4125-7525. The five petitioners are drawing salary in the Pay Scale of Rs. 3350-Rs. 6270/-. ...

Rajinder Gupta Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ674; 123(2005)DLT55; 2005(84)DRJ477

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. A1. The common questions in these bail applications are:1) Whether Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is a 'psychotropic substance' within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) ?2) If yes, whether Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is a 'psychotropic substance' to which Chapter VII of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Rules) apply To what effect ?It was contended by the petitioners that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride I.P. Injections which are the subject matter of the present applications are drugs specified under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and conform to standards indicated in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the Buprenorphine Hydrochloride injections involved in the present applications conformed to the specifications mentioned in the Indian Pharmacopoeia and were Schedule 'H' Drugs ...

Schindler Aufzuge Und Farhtreppen Ag Vs. Director of It and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Del)262

ORDERBY THE COURT:Issue rule. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and agrees to the disposal of the writ petition at this stage itself.2. The petitioner is aggrieved of two orders, one dated 16-1-2003, passed by the Director of IT, International Taxation, and the other dated 28-1-2004, passed by the Asstt. Director of IT, International Taxation. Insofar as the order passed by the Director of IT, International Taxation, is concerned, the same arises out of proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), in a revision filed against the assessing officer's order dated 28-4-2005. By the said order, the assessing officer had declined grant of a 'No tax certificate' under section 197 of the Act. The Director of IT, International Taxation, while overriding the said order, came to the conclusion that the liability of the petitioner to pay any tax under the Act would depend upon whether the petitioner- company is c...

B.T. Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. By this appeal the appellant has challenged the adjudication order No. DD(A.A)/DZ/363/2003/65 dated 22-12-2003 whereby a penalty of Rs. 2,30,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This case was initiated by issuance of SCN No. T-4/251/DZ/2002/DD dated 28-5-2002 asking the appellant to explain why it should not be held guilty for its failure to submit exchange control copies of bill of entry against five remittances of foreign exchange of Rs. 39,94,362. The appellant replied to the said SCN. Not agreeing the adjudication proceeding was held and appellant was held guilty for non-submission of evidence of imports regarding three remittances of AED 82,986, GBP 14,971.02, GBP 13,462.50 total equivalent to Indian Rs. 22,98,117. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred the present appeal alongwith the application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty. This Tribunal vide an order dated 5-4-...

Steriplate (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)7SOT596(Delhi)

This appeal of the revenue and cross objection raised by the assessee relate to the order dated 20-11-1998 of Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 1995-96. Both the appeals which relate to the same assessment year and were heard together are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In the revenue's appeal, the following grounds have been raised : "(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in directing the assessing officer to recompute the capital gained under section 45 of the Income Tax Act with reference to the consideration received for the said transfer vis-a-vis the cost of acquisition of undertaking without appreciating the facts that the assessee itself worked out the capital gain in the return of income on net asset value method and without appreciating the fact that the capital gains on depreciable assets are to be worked out in accordance with the special provisions o...

Akal Purkh Ex-servicemen Vs. Ito, Tds Ward 49(1)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)5SOT200(Delhi)

These five appeals have been filed by the same assessee against different orders of Learned Commissioner (Appeals) for financial years 1995-96 to 1999-2000. As facts and circumstances and issues pertaining to these appeals are similar, for the sake of convenience, these five appeals were heard and are being decided together.Shri M.S. Sekhon, Learned Chartered Accountant appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Rananjay Singh, Senior Departmental Representative represented the revenue.Before dealing with the individual appeals, we consider it proper to narrate the background and relevant facts relating to this matter which are as under : The Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Defence formulated a scheme in 1979 to raise ex-servicemen coal transport companies. The purpose of the scheme was to have union free captive transport companies in coal subsidiaries of Coal India Limited and to provide resettlement opportunity to ex-servicemen. This scheme laid down the eligibility criteria for the...

Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)97TTJ(Delhi)108

1. ITA No. 2823/Del/2004 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 5th March, 2004 of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 2000-01. ITA No. 819/Del/2005 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 25th Jan., 2005 of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, relating to the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. Common issues are involved in both these appeals and were heard together. We deem it convenient to pass this common order.3. The first issue that arises for consideration in both these appeals is with regard to the disallowance made by the AO out of administrative expenses paid by the assessee to M/s Smithkline Beachem Consumer Hair (sic-Health) Care Ltd. (SBCH). The grievance of the assessee in this regard is projected in ground No. 1 to 1.9 in ITA No. 2823/Del/2004 and in ground Nos. 1 to 1.20 in ITA No. 819/Del/2005. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the aforesaid ground of appeal are as follows. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture ...

Karwa Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT238TriDel

1. Heard both sides. Applicants filed this application for waiver of duty.2. In this case, the benefit of Notification No. 76/86-Cus., dated 10-2-1986 was denied to the Gambier imported on 23-6-2000 on the ground that Notification provides exemption to Kattha and not to Gambier.3. The applicants relied upon a Circular No. 63/2003-Cus., dated 21-7-2003 issued by the Department of Revenue. The contention is that by this Circular it has been clarified that Notification No. 76/86-Cus.was amended by Notification No. 16/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 whereby the gambier was excluded from the scope of the Notification No.76/86-Cus. The Board clarified that this exclusion was w.e.f. 1-3-2003 as the amending notification is prospective in nature. The contention is that in view of this Circular the appellants are entitled for the benefit of this notification as the import was made prior to 1-3-2003.4. The contention of the revenue is that Gambier and Kattha are two different products and the notific...

Jubilant Organosys Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)STR128

1. Heard both sides. The applicants filed this application for waive of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty. In this case, the demand of service tax was confirmed in respect of taxable service received by the applicants. The contention is that the recipients of the service are liable to pay service tax only w.e.f. 16th August, 2002. The contention is that in the present case, the transfer of technology was effected during the year 1995-1996 and the provisions of service tax with regard to the said service was not in force at that time.2. The contention of the revenue is that the applicants are paying regularly royalty regarding the goods manufactured by them using drawing and design supplied by the foreign supplier. In this case, the transfer of technology was effected during the year 1995-96. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue, therefore, prima facie, the applicants have a strong case as the provision of service tax was not in force at that time. The predeposit of the whole...

Jay Bee Industries and Spl Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of prediposit of duty and equal amount of penalty.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of transformer. They are also engaged in the repair of old and used transformers. In the present case, the old and used/defective transformers are received by the applicants for repair.In these transformers, the Electricity Boards handed over the transformers after removing the coil and oil to the applicant and applicants after repair cleared those transformers without payment of duty to the various State Electricity Boards. Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicants demanding duty in respect of these transformers and they are only receiving tank and core of the transformer from the electricity boards and out of this core and tank, a new transformer is manufactured by them. The extended period of limitation was also invoked on the applicants on the ground that they had suppres...