Delhi Court June 2006 Judgments

Sony India (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]285ITR213(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assails the correctness of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in so far as the Tribunal has disallowed a deduction towards contribution of a sum of Rs. 4,31,342 made by the assessed to the gratuity fund and a sum of Rs. 35,31,223 contributed towards the superannuation fund on the ground that the said funds were not approved during the relevant period.2. For the assessment year 1998-99, the appellant filed a revised return declaring, an income of Rs. 1,15,76,566. The assesseds case before the assessing officer was that it had entered into an agreement with the Life Insurance Corporation of India and made contributions towards gratuity and superannuation funds for the benefit of its employees. An application made by the appellant to the Commissioner for approval of the fund under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme (corporate and factory) had resulted in approval for the said fund wi...

Cit Vs. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]307ITR142(Delhi); [2006]155TAXMAN223(Delhi)

T.S. Thakur, J. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has, in all these cases, either deleted or affirmed the deletion of penalty levied upon the assessed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has, while doing so, relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) and held that the authority initiating the penalty had not recorded its satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessed. The revenue has assailed the correctness of the said orders in these appeals.2. Learned counsel for the revenue advanced a two fold submission in support of these appeals. Firstly it was contended that the issue of a notice proposing to initiate penalty proceedings against the assessed was in itself indicative of the satisfaction of the authority initiating the proceedings regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Alter...

Shrivatsa International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,13,29,497/-. The applicant made import of fabric and cleared the same as fabric of non-texturised polyester filament and claimed the Custom Tariff classification No. 54076190 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 36/2003. As per the Revenue, the goods are fabric is not made of non-texturised polyester filament but it is made of texturised polyester filament, therefore, is classifiable under Heading 54075290 and are not entitled for the benefit of notification.3. The contention of the applicant is that the goods were provisionally released after taking samples for testing by CRCL, Textile Committee and the Government Central Textile Institute, Kanpur, the report of CRCL shows that the fabric was made of texturised polyester filament.However, the other test reports of Textile Committee and Government Central Textile Institute given specific report that it is made of non-texturised polyester filament...

Sharma Travels Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STT420

1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 30-11-2005 wherein, the order-in-original confirming the demand of imposition of penalty is upheld.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant is an air travel agent and is registered with the authorities for payment of service tax. For the period October, 1999 and March, 2004, the appellant filed returns with the authorities in respect of service tax payable by them and paid by them. In those returns, the appellants adjusted the amount of service tax which was paid on the cancelled tickets and remitted the differential service tax. Department issued a show cause notice for recovering the differential duty on the ground that the appellant cannot suo motu do the adjustment. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax amount and also imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) also agreed with the findings and upheld the order-in-original. Hence this appeal.3. Learned advocate appearing for t...

Randhir Singh S/O Shri Mauji Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. On the last date of hearing i.e. 24.5.2006, learned Counsel for applicant had sought adjournment to study the latest judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi . In these circumstances, invoking Rule 15(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, I proceeded to decide the matter on merits after perusal of pleadings, material placed on record and hearing learned Counsel for respondents.3. By the present OA, validity of orders dated 16.5.2005, 04.7.2005 and 22.7.2005 vide which applications were invited for the post of Theatre Orderly / Nursing Attendants for regular employment have been challenged. It is the contention of applicants that since they have been working in said capacity on casual basis for the last 8/10 years they are entitled to be regularized, and, therefore respondents be directed to absorb them keeping in view their seniority without inviting names from the Employment Exchange with all consequential benefits. It is further contended that ...

Mr. Paul Mohinder Gahun Vs. Mrs. Selina Gahun

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT524; 2006(90)DRJ77

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.CM (M) No. 428/20051. Admit.2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The tussle for the custody of the minor child brought by the respondent to India from Canada has given rise to the present petition.4. The petitioner is the father of Anika, a girl child born on 5.11.1998 in Canada out of the wedlock between the parties. The petitioner, the respondent and the minor girl are all Canadian citizens.5. Prior to the dispute, the petitioner and the respondent were married for 12 years since 1991 and were residing in Canada. During this period of time both the petitioner and the respondent were gainfully employed.6. The respondent along with Anika came to India on 2.12.2003 for a planned visit and were to stay in India till 2.2.2004. Both of them came to India on return tickets of the said dates. The return was postponed and ultimately in the latter part of February 2004, the respondent informed that she ha...

Cooperative Stores Ltd. Vs. Ved Parkash Bhambri

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 130(2006)DLT374; 2006(89)DRJ537; (2006)IIILLJ648Del

S. Muralidhar, J.1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th November, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP (C) 68/2000.3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeal may be noticed. The respondent an employee of the appellant, was issued a charge sheet on May 2, 1992 on certain allegations of misconduct. The resultant disciplinaryproceedings culminated in a report by the enquiry officer on March 4, 1995 finding the respondent guilty of the charges. It is not disputed that this enquiry report was never acted upon and the respondent was superannuated with effect from June 13, 1999.4. Since the appellant failed to settle the retiral benefits of the respondent he caused a legal notice to be issued on August 27, 1999 calling upon the appellant to settle his dues. It appears that only after the receipt of this legal notice, the ap...

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT499; 2006(90)DRJ35

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 25.2.2006 whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 474 IPC and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-, was dismissed. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge as set out in the impugned judgment are as under :-3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 11.10.1993 SI Dharampal along with Yashpal, Ct. Janender Singh and Ct. Virender Singh were on patrolling duty and at about 5.10 p.m. when they reached at DMC picket, Rani Jhansi Road, SI Dharam Pal received a secret information that one Ashok and his accomplice who are indulged in preparing fake driving licenses and fake documents i.e., RC and NOC will come at DTC Bus Stand, Tikona Park, Bara Hindu Rao to...