Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corprn. of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Del)317; 135(2006)DLT36; [2007]292ITR580(Delhi)

ORDER1. These six appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act') are directed against the common order dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (`ITAT') Delhi Bench allowing the appeals (ITA Nos. 3786 to 3791/Del/2005) filed by the respondent Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India). While the impugned order dated 21.4.2006 also allowed another appeal of the respondent being TDS No. 166/Del/2003 (for the Assessment Years 1995-96 to 2001-02), no appeal appears to have been filed in respect of the said matter.2. At the outset we notice that in the memorandum of appeal it is stated that the respondent 'is a government body which controls and manages various Doordarshan Channels.' The appellant is, thereforee, required to obtain permission from the Committee on Disputes (COD) to litigate, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Collection of Central Excise (1994) ...

Sandeep Khurana Vs. Delhi Transco Ltd. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT346

ORDERIt has been decided to constitute a departmental committee to look into an alleged case of harassment made by Smt. Vinita Tiwari, AG-III, E.No.32650 against Sh. Sandeep Khurana, AG-III. The complaint committee shall consist of the following members:1. Smt. Kavita Sharma, Manager (SS&NP;) - Chairman2. Smt. Rajrani Mehta, PS to GM (Const.) - Member3. Sh. M.K. Chowdhury, AM (Vig.) - Member4. Sh. P. Narayanan, AM (F) EB - Member Secy. The Committee shall look into the charges from the vigilance angle also and submit its report within 7 days. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.Sd/- (M.M. Gupta)DY. MANAGER.(A)IICopy to:1. Director (HR)2. GM (A)3. All members of the Committee.6. Conspicuously the copy of this order was not sent to the petitioner. The Committee issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.11.2004. No copy of any complaint or report or any memorandum or any statement of articles of charges was enclosed with this notice. It was simply one sentence notice as...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.H.i. Seeds India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Del)320; [2008]301ITR13(Delhi)

1. These Appeals have been filed by the Revenue in respect of the Assessment Years 1995-96 and 1996-97 of the Respondent which is indisputably engaged in agricultural activity. The Assessing Officer (AO) has imposed penalties on the assessed holding that it had earned income by way of interest on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amounting to Rs. 12,07,217/-, assessable under the head 'Income from other Sources', but the assessed had incorrectly deducted there from a sum of Rs. 8,89,897/-, being interest paid by it on its overdraft account. The assessed had in this manner shown only a sum of Rs. 3,17,319/- as 'Income from Other Sources'. While framing the Assessment, the AO had calculated the income of the assessed by deducting the interest paid by it on its overdraft borrowings from its 'agricultural' earnings, which are exempt from taxation. The entire interest earned from the FDRs has been taxed as income from other sources. The Assessment had been unsuccessfully challenged, but not pur...

Sonal Food Products and ors. Vs. State Through Food Inspector (Pfa), G ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ273

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two petitions are taken up together as they raise a common question which needs to be decided by this Court. The petitioners are the same in both the matters. The product, in question, is also the same, namely, Gutkha. 2. The question that arises for consideration is whether a franchiser would be liable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act') for an adulterated food product manufactured by his franchisee/license user/permitted user? 3. The facts of Crl. M.C. 100/2005 alone are being considered as representation of the other petition. In the complaint filed under Section 16 of the said Act, it is stated that on 15.1.2000 at about 4 p.m., the Food Inspector Dharamvir Singh purchased a sample of Gutkha (Rajdarbar), a food article for analysis from Shri Sanjay Jain at M/s Tarun Trading Company where the said food article was found stored for sale and where the said Sanjay Jain was found conducting the busin...

Shiv Dhan Sharma, S/O Late Pt. Har Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through It ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As the issue raised in these two OAs being identical in nature, same were heard together and are disposed of by the present common order.2. MA No. 1272/2006 filed by 7 applicants in OA 1557/2006 retired during years 1990 - 1995, under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together is allowed. Similarly MA No. 2069/2005 filed by 6 applicants retired during years 1986 - 1992 in OA No. 2350/2005 filed under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together is also allowed, particularly in the absence of any opposition.3. The basic grievance raised is regarding non-grant of Dearness Allowance (D.A.) for calculating DCRG to applicants, who had retired prior to 01.01.1996. It is stated that applicants were posted under the Department of Police and retired from service during the years 1990 - 1995. They were granted gratuity, for which maximum limit was prescribed, i.e. rupees one lakh. The said gratuity paid to them had a relation with basic salary and D.A. was...

Shri Yoginder Lall Sharma S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Through this OA, applicants, the retirees of the period 1986 to 1991, are seeking revision of pension, family pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits at par with running staff and running supervisors in stationery jobs of Railways whereby 55% and 75% respectively add-on element has been applied in their case but denied to the applicants.3. Facts are not dispute. Insofar as position of law is concerned, the Tribunal in Prem Shanker Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.OA-1545/2002 decided on 15.7.2005 allowed the similar claim and thereafter a detailed decision in Vinod Kuma Saxena v. Union of India and Ors. OA-118/2006 decided on 24.8.2006 laid at rest the aforesaid controversy on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Kishan Lal v. Union of India and Ors. SLP (CC) 4355/2004 decided on 6.7.2004 whereby upholding the directions of the Tribunal, the Apex Court allowed add-on element for revision of pay scale.4. Learned Counsel for applicants states that the applicant...

Wing Commander Rajiv Arora Vs. Union and India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(93)DRJ229

ORDER AND AIR FORCE DISCIPLINEIn that he, at New Delhi on the night of 28/29 Apr 05, improperly introduced himself as husband of Mrs. Ambika Singhania to Head Constatble Ranbir and Constable Dharmender, Police Personnel of Delhi; Police, knowing such statement to be false.SECOND CHARGESECTION 45 AIR FORCE ACT, 1950BEHAVING IN A MANNER UNBECOMING THE POSITION AND CHARACTER OF AN OFFICERIn that he, at New Delhi, on the night of 28/29 Apr. 05, used offensive language to Sh. Dependra Pathak Deputy Commissioner of Police, South. West District, New Delhi and behaved in a riotous manner.THIRD CHARGESECTION 48 AIRFORCE ACT, 1959INTOXICATIONIn that, he, at New Delhi on the night of 28/29 Apr 05, was found in a state of intoxication.FOURTH CHARGESECTION 48 AIR FORCE ACT, 1950INTOXICATIONIn that he, at Gandhinagar (Gujarat) on 06 Jan 06, was found in a state of intoxication.FIFTH CHARGESECTION 40(a) AIRFORCE ACT, 1950ASSAULTING HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERIn that he, at Gandhinagar (Gujarat), on 06 Jan 0...

Colonel B.S. Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 136(2007)DLT284

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. The petitioner Col. B.S. Rai was charged of having committed the following offence under Section 57(c) of the Army Act, 1950 on 14.1.2004:CHARGE SHEETThe accused, IC-34740F Colonel Brijendra Singh Rai of Army Headquarters (Directorate General of Signal Intelligence) attached to Headquarters 11 Corps Artillery Brigade, an officer holding a permanent commission in the Regular Army, is charged with:Army Act Section 57(c) KNOWINGLY AND WITH INTENT TO INJURE ANY PERSON ALTERING A DOCUMENT WHICH IT WAS HIS DUTY TO PRODUCE In that he, at Jalandhar Cantt, on or about 26 Sept 2000, which came to the knowledge of the authority competent to initiate action on 20 Feb 2003, while Commanding 571 Sub Group and having awarded figurative assessment of nine points in paragraphs 9(a), 9(b), 9(d), 9(g), 9(h), 9(j), 9(k), 10(a) to 10(g) and 12 of the Annual Confidential Report of IC-47755H Major Ajay Shreedhar of his unit, which it was his duty to submit, knowingly altered the assessm...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)38; [2008]299ITR268(Delhi)

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This batch of Appeals has been filed by the Revenue seeking to reverse the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT (A) for brevity) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT for short) adverse to the Revenue. Succinctly stated, in January, 1984 the assessed had commenced its business of extending finance to industrial enterprises. The total issued, subscribed and paid up capital in the Assessment Year's 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 was Rs.99,80,000/- received from Directors/Promoters and also by way of a public issue. These sums were received through banking channels and complete records were maintained. The Assessing Officer ( 'AO' for short) made the following additions which came to be deleted/reversed by the CIT (A), whose decision was thereafter upheld by the ITAT.A.Y. Amount received by way Addition made and, deletedof share capital by the by learned CIT (A) and,assessed company deletion upheld by learnedITAT1984-85 10,23,0...

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC504

2. The relevant fact that arise for consideration are the appellants are availing Cenvat credit on the duty paid inputs used by them. During the scrutiny of the records by the audit party, it was noticed that appellant had availed excess modvat credit of Rs. 59,950/- in respect of the inputs on which credit note was issued by the appellant for various discounts. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for reversal of the said amount and also for imposition of penalty.Appellant contested the show cause notice on the ground that the reduction in the rate in itself will not amount to lesser payment of duty paid on inputs. The reduction in rate is nothing but a commercial arrangement with their suppliers. The learned adjudicating authority did not accept these contentions and confirmed the demand and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. On an appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) also concurred with the findings of the adjudicating authority and upheld the order. Hence this appeal...