Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Saroj Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Delhi)1073
1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the CIT(A), dt. 5th Sept., 2000.2. Ground No. 1 in both the appeals are directed against reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Act after the lapse of four years.3. Ground Nos. 2 to 2.4 in both the appeals is directed against addition of Rs. 1,39,219 and Rs. 1,26,299 as unexplained investments in house property in the asst. yrs. 1988-89 and 1989-90 under Section 69 of the Act.4. Ground No. 2.5 of the appeal in both the years is directed against not allowing self-supervision charges @ 10 per cent while determining the estimated cost of construction of house property.5. Since all these grounds of appeal are interconnected, they are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience.6. The brief facts of the case as stated in the CIT(A)'s order are to quote as under: The brief facts of the case are that the assessee constructed a house property at plot No. R-11/12, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. The...
Rakesh Kalia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC627; (2006)205CTR(Del)627; [2006]286ITR357(Delhi)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This is an assessed's appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ( for short `the Act') against the order dated September 16, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( for short `The Tribunal') in ITA No. 901 /Del/2003 pertaining to assessment year 1992-1993.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer upon scrutiny of the documents filed by the assessed along with his return found that there was a credit entry of Rs. 2,55,000/- made on 1.2.1992 in the Savings Bank Account of the assessed. The assessed was asked to explain the nature and the source of the receipt. In response, he filed a declaration under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991 to claim that this amount was received by debit to an NRE Account. It was not clear from the certificate issued by the bank as to whom the account belonged. To verify the genuineness of the declaration, a reference was made to the State Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bangal...
Shiv Raj Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 132(2006)DLT88
J.M. Malik, J.1. The two short questions which fall for the consideration in this writ petition are firstly whether the Inquiry Officer was authorized to impose penalty of withholding of three increments due in 1984, 1985 and 1986 'with recurring effect' and secondly imposition of such penalty comes within the purview of minor penalty or major penalty as defined in Rule 117 (a) or (b) of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973. The petitioner, a Teacher in Swami Sivananda Memorial Secondary School, East Punjabi Bagh, was served with a show cause notice dated 5.6.1985 proposing penalty withholding of three increments due in 1984, 1985 and 1986 with recurring effect. He received memorandum dated 26.6.1985 wherein such penalty was imposed.2. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued with vehemence that withholding of three increments with recurring effect is only a minor penalty and it does not tantamount to reduction in rank as provided in Clause (b) of Section 117. He pointed out that si...
Association for Investment Management and Research and anr. Vs. the In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(33)PTC352(Del)
ORDER30. In view of above, I allow the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and restrain the defendants, during the pendency of the suit, from using any of the trademarks or service marks CFA, Chartered Financial Analyst, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, ICFA and ICFAI or any other name or mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to these marks and from passing off their programmes or business as that of the plaintiffs. However, this order of injunction will not come into effect till the end of current academic session of the CFA programme run by the defendants. Nor will anything said herein will mean final expression of opinion of this Court....
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ403
Manju Goel, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction on the respondents, namely, The Chairman & Managing Director, Housing & Urban Development Corporation Limited (in short `HUDCO') to reinstate the petitioner in service as Data Entry Operator. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 through a contract agency, namely, Industrial Development Corporation Limited to work on HUDCO projects at Andrewsganj as Computer Programmer from 9.8.1995 to 30.9.1996, that thereafter the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 as Data Entry Operator and was posted as such with respondent No. 1 (Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment) on deputation, that respondent No. 3 was also appointed along with petitioner and was posted with respondent No. 1, that meanwhile respondent No. 2 conducted interview and test for the post of EDP Assistant Grade-III and thereafter called the petitioner for interview, that the peti...
The State Vs. Mohd. Hussain
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 140(2007)DLT428
P.K. Bhasin, J.1. Conviction of one Md. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali @ Abdul Rauf s/o Nazir Ahmed for the offences under Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 vide judgment dated 26-10-04 and imposition of death sentence upon him vide order dated 3-11-2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in sessions case No. 122/98 has led to the making of a reference to this Court by the trial court for confirmation of the sentence of death and filing of an appeal by the above named convicted accused.2. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the trial court record is as follows:On 30-12-1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one blue line bus No. DL-1P-3088 carrying passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at the Ram Pura bus stand on Rohtak Road for passengers to get down. The moment that bus stopped there an explosion took place inside the bus because of which its floor got ripped apart. Four passengers of that bus, namely, Ms. Tapoti, Taj Mohd...
Mohd. Aamir Khan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 138(2007)DLT759
R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 823 of 2003 challenges the judgment of conviction dated 23.4.2003 and order of sentence dated 8.5.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302/307/436 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act in Sessions case No. 104 of 1998 arising out of FIR No. 631 of 1997, Police Station Karol Bagh, New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the Prosecution case, as have been noted by the Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge, are as follows:That on 26.10.97, SI Sandeep Gupta along with HC Makkhan Singh and other police officials were on patrolling duty and were present near Hardayal Singh Road and Azmal Khan crossing, when at about 7.00 pm., he heard the explosion and he went to the spot i.e. Roshan Di Kulfi. The S.H.O. and A.C.P. also came to the spot. Several persons had sustained injuries in the explosion and a substantial damage was also caused to the shop. The injured were rem...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Polar Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC687
1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,68,771/- filed by the respondents.2. It appears from the record that the respondent was a manufacturer of excisable goods and was availing facility of modvat credit during the period from June, 1996 to February, 2000. The respondents sent the inputs for job work to different job workers under the cover of Challans issued under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, after debiting the amount equal to 10% of the value of inputs as provided under Rule 57F(6). According to the respondents, the goods were received back after the job work under duplicate copy of challans within the stipulated period of 180 days and the credit of amount debited under Rule 57F(6) was taken in terms of Rule 57F(7). However, the respondents subsequently noticed that less credit was taken than the am...
Amrit Varsha Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)11STT58
1. Common issue is involved in both these cases, therefore, are being taken up together.2. The appellants filed these appeals against the impugned orders whereby the demand of service tax was confirmed treating the appellants as Clearing and Forwarding Agents.3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in procuring orders and passing them on the principal for execution in lieu of commission. The Adjudicating Authority held that procuring orders on commission basis also falls under the scope of Clearing and Forwarding Agents after relying upon the decision in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. CCE view taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. is overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri-LB). Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that mere procuring and booking orders for the principal by an agent on payment of commission would not amoun...
Flex Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC677
1. When this matter was called out, an application was placed on record by the authorised representative of the appellant stating that the Deputy General Manager dealing with the matter was not coming to office because of illness and therefore, it was not possible to argue the matter today. The appellant is a public limited company and merely because the Deputy General Manager was not attending the office, that would not be a sufficient ground for adjourning this matter. Moreover, the learned authorised representative is present and had handled the matter before the Commissioner. When informed that, no adjournment can be granted, he has assisted the Court by raising appropriate contentions after going through the record.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal filed by the revenue by setting aside the order-in-original, by which the Assistant Commisioner, Central Excise had allowed the modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 2,04,123/- in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »