Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Mr. Alok Johri, Additional Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the question involved for consideration & determination is same in this bunch of cases, we propose to decide them by this common order.For brevity, facts are delineated from OA No. 1356/2006.2. Basic challenge has been made to order No. 69 of 2006 of CBDT dated 31st May, 2006 vide which a large number of officials in the grades of Additional/Joint Commissioners of Income Tax have been posted/transferred from one region to another region. Para 3 of aforesaid order states that: Officers who had completed 8 years at class 'A' station(s) in the present cycle of 16 years have been transferred out of Delhi and Mumbai are to be posted to B/C Stations for 6 years as per Transfer Policy. The CCIT (CCAs) shall take this aspect into consideration while deciding posting of such officers.Representations filed against aforesaid transfer order had also been rejected vide communication dated 26.06.2006, which is also impugned herein.3. It is an admitted case of the parties that aforesaid tr...

Shri Shankar Dutt, S/O Shri Ram Vs. the Canteen Chairman Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, applicant seeks directions to Respondent to allow him to join his duty as canteen worker without discontinuation of his services in accordance with law and to regularize him as per appropriate rules with consequential benefits.2. Admitted facts of the case are that applicant was provided employment for Wet Canteen work on daily wages initially from 27.01.1997 to 24.02.1997, which period was continued till 31.08.2005.It is stated that during he aforesaid period, he had worked continuously without any break, and no adverse remarks were ever conveyed to him. He was paid monthly salary. In August, 2005 he was paid Rs. 2100/-, i.e. even less than the amount prescribed in the Minimum Wages Act applicable in Delhi. All of a sudden, he was not allowed to join duty in canteen on 01.09.2005 without assigning any reason. He claims that as per the scheme laid down by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel vide OM dated 10.09.1993, he is entitled for regularization.3. Shri S...

Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs. Pariwar Sewa Sanstha

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)861

1. This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order dt. 28th Jan., 2003 passed by learned CIT(A), New Delhi for the asst. yr.1998-99. The assessee has also filed the cross-objection in the matter. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing the expenditure amounting to Rs. 9,28,83,209.2.1 The ground of appeal of the assessee in cross-objection reads as under: That the learned CIT(A) has erred while denying the exemption and computing the income not excluded an amount of Rs. 32,83,353, representing the stocks of the medicines held by the assessee trust. The aforesaid expenditure having been incurred and the amount utilized for charitable purpose, had to be excluded while computing the total income of the assessee, in respect of which income only, deduction could have been disallowed, in the event it is held there was violation of Sections 11 and 12 of IT Act.3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a society registered under the Soci...

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are four appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20-9-2004 for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04, in the matter of order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following common grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in treating the appellant as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Act for alleged short deduction of tax at source from payment made to Clearing and Forwarding Agents ('C&FA') during the relevant financial year. 2. That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer holding that the payments made to C&FA were for rendering managerial services and, therefore, tax was required to be deducted therefrom under Section 194J instead of Section 194C of the Act. 3. That the Commissioner...

Director of Agricultrure Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT408; 2006(92)DRJ604; 2006(112)ECC207; 2006LC207(Delhi); 2006(204)ELT365(Del)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This is an application for condensation of delay of 736 days in filing the present application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962('Act') against the impugned order dated 19.9.2001 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold(Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT') in appeal No. C/530/93-B.2. In explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay, it is stated that initially an appeal under Section 130 of the Act against the impugned order was filed on 10.7.2002 but was returned by the Registry as not maintainable. It is stated that the impugned order dated 19.9.2001 was received by the appellant on 1.1.2002 and the appeal was first filed in this Court in April, 2002 and re-filed on 10.7.2002. Much of the delay appears to have been taken up in curing the office objections on account of the issue of non-maintainability of the appeal initially filed.3. From the reply to the application filed by the Collector of Customs, it appears that since the applicant is aggrieved only b...

Khalil Sarvar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(327)DRJ92

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner in this Writ Petition, assails order dated 4th April, 2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') dismissing OA No. 2853/2005. Petitioner in OA had challenged the order dated 3.8.2005, repatriating him from CBI to CRPF.2. Petitioner prays for directions to set aside the orders reverting and placing him at the disposal of his parent Department i.e. CRPF. He further prays for directions to the CBI for considering his case for absorption on the basis of his service record as per Rules and Circulars issued. 3. Facts leading to the present petition may briefly be recapitulated:(i) Petitioner joined CRPF as Sub Inspector on 16.1.1991. He was selected for Deputation to CBI as Inspector after being released from CRPF with effect from 26.3.1997, he took charge on 4.4.1997. The initial deputation period was for five years and was extended for the sixth year i.e. up to 3.4.2004. (ii) During his Deputation in CBI he was inter alia,...

Sh. Rajpal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ176

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10th April, 2003 and 30th September, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application bearing No. 3058/2002 and the Review Application No. 277/2003 and MA No. 2022/2003 respectively filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Public Prosecutor in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 22nd January, 1982. He belongs to the Scheduled Castes reserved category. He was promoted as Sr. Public Prosecutor (Sr. P.P.) on 28th December, 1987 and was further promoted as Deputy Legal Adviser (DLA) on 21st September, 1998.3. The next promotional post is that of Additional Legal Adviser (ALA) and according to the petitioner, for promotion to the said post of Additional Legal Adviser, the requirement was of three ye...

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Modipon Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)415; [2008]303ITR438(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The question referred to this Court for opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act') is:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the scrap comprising of cops and bobbins cannot be cannot be equated with the plant and machinery and the provisions of Section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in withdrawing the development rebate in respect thereof are not applicable in the case of the assessed company? 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent assessed availed development rebate in respect of certain plant and machinery for the Assessment Year (AY) 1969-70. At the time of availing the development rebate, the assessed included cops and bobbins as forming part of the plant and machinery in respect of which the development rebate was claimed. The assessment for 1969-70 was finalised on this basis by an assessment order dated 8.3.1972. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) in a...

Smt. Chandni Luthra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ367

Manju Goel, J.1. Admit.2. The petitioner is the Senior Vice President of respondent No. 2, India Tourism Development Corporation ('ITDC' in short). She is challenging in this writ petition a memorandum dated 17.1.2006 issued by Mr. Pradip Kumar, Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries appointed by the ITDC, the charge-sheet dated 2.8.2005 and the appointment of an Inquiry Officer vide order dated 23.8.2005. She is also claiming a mandamus seeking her appointment as interim C&MD; of ITDC retrospectively w.e.f. 5.4.2005.3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under:Petitioner was the Vice President of the Duty Free Trade Division ('DFT' in short) of ITDC during the period from October, 1998 to May, 2001. At that time the Duty Free Purchase Committee consisted of four members, namely, the petitioner as Vice President (DFT), General Manager (Purchase), General Manager (Business and Development) and General Manager (Finance). A Member of Parliament in June, 200...

Cce Vs. Royal Granites (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC373

1. The issue before us relates to the period 1999-2001. The issue is, whether sawing of Marble Blocks into slabs and Marble Tiles made therefrom amounts to manufacture of not.2. When the matter went before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, he relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 2003 (58) RLT (SC), which had followed a similar question examined by them in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Associated Stone Industries and Anr. ...Cutting and polishing stones into slabs was not a process of manufacture for obvious and simple reasons that no new and distinct product came into existence as the end product still remained stone and thus its original identity continued....3. Aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed this appeal. The grounds of appeal is reproduced below: That the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise Jaipur has erred in relying on the decision o...