Delhi Court May 2006 Judgments

ito, Ward 2(2), Meerut Vs. Madan Lal Mittar

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)8SOT880(Delhi)

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22-3-2002 for the assessment year 199293 in the matter of order passed under section 143(3)."1. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 39,550 made as a short-term capital gain and failed to appreciate the evidence marshalled by assessing officer.2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,98,000 under section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,95,000made under section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and failed to examine properly the arguments of the assessing officer.4. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidence of the agreement dated 20-5-1984 which was never produced before the assessing officer and has contravening the provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rul...

Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)538; 130(2006)DLT517

J.M. Malik, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition relates to the validity of an order by which the income tax assessment proceedings qua the petitioner have been transferred from Delhi to Chandigarh. The question precisely is whether the transfer of the proceedings to Chandigarh is bad even when the petitioner's corporate office is situated in Chandigarh and all its manufacturing units are situated in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner insists that no matter only one out of a total work force of 400 and odd employees is posted in Delhi, the assessments should have been allowed to continue in Delhi. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated at Delhi having its Head Office at Delhi at 159, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Its registered office is at 85, HPSIDC Industrial Estate Badi (HP), which is now in the process of being...

Smt. Usha Kapur Vs. Smt. Kavita Kapur and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT512; 2006(90)DRJ467

Manju Goel, J.1. This application seeks extension of time for presentation of the written statement. The defendant was served with the summons of this Court on 14.10.2005. The written statement is filed on 6.3.2006, i.e., nearly 40 days after the expiry of 90 days of the service of summons. The written statement is accompanied by a counter claim. 2. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short `CPC') requires the defendant to file his written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons. It can be enlarged on reasons to be recorded in writing but such filing shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. Section 148 of the CPC further prescribes that where any period is fixed or granted by the court for doing any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the court may, in its discretion from time to time, enlarge such period not exceeding thirty days even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired.3. The Supreme Court e...

Lt. Col. L. Oliver (Retd.) Vs. the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Lt ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1028]

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these writ proceedings, the challenge is to the termination order issued on 4.8.1998 dispensing with the services of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant General Manager in the respondent Delhi Stock Exchange (DSE). The termination was effected pursuant to a condition in the appointment letter issued by DSE.2. The petitioner was appointed on 22-9-1992 by DSE as Senior Manager(Systems). The appointment letter contained a condition, enabling the DSE to terminate his services without cause, by mere issuance of a notice. The said condition read as follows: Notice Your services shall be liable to be terminated on three months notice or salary in lieu thereof on either side except on disciplinary grounds, in which case, no such notice or payment in lieu thereof shall be necessary.3. The termination order dated 4-8-1998 impugned in these proceedings reads as follows:Dear Sir, In accordance with the decision of the Board of Directors at their meeting held toda...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Del)428; 132(2006)DLT375; [2006]287ITR46(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The common question of law which the revenue has raised in all these appeals for our adjudication is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the assessed's claim for proportionate allowance of premium payable on redemption of debentures issued by it. The question is no longer rest integra in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax : [1997]225ITR802(SC) , but before we refer to the said decision in some detail, we need to state a few facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals.2. The assessed company is engaged in the manufacture of liquors, snack foods, bottles and jars, etc. It appears to have issued debentures with a provision that the same could be redeemed at a premium of 5% after a period of 7 years from the date of their issue. It had, ever since the issue of debentures, followed the practice of debiting the proportionate amount of premium ...

Asia Metal Corporation (Huf) Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT545

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. These two revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 6.12.2001 whereby all the accused persons except the accused Yogesh Gupta have been 'discharged'. The accused persons were said to have committed the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 141 thereof.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (Sanjay Chaudhary) submits at the very outset that these revision petitions are not maintainable. He referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of R.P.G. Transmission Ltd. v. Sakura Seimitsu (I) Ltd. : 119(2005)DLT393. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act were proceedings pertaining to a summons-case trial and had to be in terms of the procedure laid down in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). According to...

Dinesh Kumar Vs. Netaji Subhash Institute of Tec. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT357

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. Issue Rule. With consent of counsel for the parties, these petitions were heard finally.2. All the Petitioners in these cases were appointed/engaged by the respondent Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology (hereafter 'the Institute'). The initial appointment or engagement differ; in some cases, appointments were made in 1991-92, 1995-96 and subsequently in 1998-99. All the Petitioners continued to work either as contract employees or on ad hoc basis. In many cases the periods of employment were not continuous but on intermittent basis.3. The Institute needed the services of the Petitioners, for putting up a building and most of the Petitioners were engaged in connection with the building project. It is an undisputed fact that regular sanctioned vacancies in respect of these posts were not created by the Institute, which is an autonomous organization, but subject to the control of the Government of NCT.4. The common case of all the Petitioners is that their period...

Jaideep Bajaj Vs. Smt. Shashi Bajaj and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2006Delhi335; 2006(90)DRJ138

Manju Goel, J.1. This judgment is to decide two preliminary issues being issues Nos. 1 & 2 which are as under:1) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? (OPP)2) Whether the suit is barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4)(b) CPC/ (OPP)2. Briefly stated the story of the plaintiff in the present suit is as under:Narain Das was the owner of property No. E-129-130, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi. He died leaving behind five sons, namely, Shri Jugal Kishore, Shri Arjun Dev Bajaj, Shri Bal Kishan Bajaj, Shri Bhim Sen Bajaj and Shri Dina Nath Bajaj. By virtue of a family settlement between the Shri Jugal Kishore, Shri Arjun Dev Bajaj and Shri Bal Kishan Bajaj, Shri Bal Kishan Bajaj became the exclusive owner of the entire ground floor of property No. E-130, Amar Colony as well as for the entire second floor, third floor and terrace of the property bearing No. E-129, Amar Colony. The plaintiff is the son and defendant Nos. 1 & 2 are the widow and daughter of Bal ...

G.D. Tiwari and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT675; 2006(90)DRJ562

Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioner M/s G.D. Tiwari and Company filed the petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 with a prayer to call upon the Arbitrator Respondent No. 2 Shri K.D. Bali to file his award in the dispute between the parties, viz., the petitioner and the respondent No. 1-the DDA. The petitioner obtained a contract for work of construction of 590 DUs under SFS at Vasant Kunj, Sector-C, Grade III SH: Construction of stone boundary wall and park wall vide agreement No. 3/HD-II/87-88. Some controversies between the parties arose and the respondent No. 2 Shri K.D. Bali was appointed Arbitrator in the matter who published his award. On the petition being filed the CS(OS) No. 767-A/1996 was registered. Notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties and objections to the award was filed by the DDA under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Objections have been replied to and both parties have filed affidavits in support of their respective content...

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. It is seen that the appeals themselves can be disposed of.Accordingly, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit. I proceed with the appeals. Both the appeals are also disposed of under this common order, as the issue involved is common.3. The main activity of the appellants is the manufacturing of sugar from sugarcane. In the manufacture of sugar, molasses arises as a by product. It is stored in tanks and cleared on payment of duty. Molasses is also under State Excise Control, since its main use is in the production of alcohol.4. In the current proceedings, central excise duty demands are in respect of quantities of molasses found short. The orders have treated the quantities as having been cleared without payment of duty. The explanation of the appellant was that the shortages were the result of natural losses and quantities involved are within the normal limit prescribed by the department itself (2%). It was also mentioned that the appellants had filed application for...