Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Vadilal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed by the applicant against the order of the Tribunal dated 16-10-2003.2. In this case, when the applicant filed the application for rectification of mistake, the Technical Officer of the Tribunal did not accept the application on the ground that the applicant had filed the application belatedly. The applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 9-12-2005 , has directed the Tribunal to hear the application for rectification of mistake and dispose it on merits. Hence this matter is listed before us today.3. Considered the submissions made at length by both the sides. We find from the record that the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal ex-parte had considered only one ground of appeal out of all the grounds filed by the applicant in the Appeal Memorandum. The ground No.3 which challenges the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards the function of product to commercial...

Karan Singh, Satish Chand and Abhe Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Ministry o ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The three applicants in the OA are Assistant Grade-III working in erstwhile Indian Government Mint. At present they are working on deemed deputation basis in the newly incorporated Company Indian Government Mint, but they continue to be in the Government Service and that the respondent No.1 is responsible for implementing the order of the Tribunal, if any passed in the present proceedings as per the submissions made by the learned ounsel for the respondents on 3.8.2006. Payment of officiating pay to the petitioners too as ordered in case of Mahender Singh Rana under OA No. 228/2003 by Honble CAT (PB) New Delhi and as confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under WP (C) No. 4029/2004 on 16.3.2005. Deemed promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-I in the scale of Rs.4000-6000 till the last date of duty as machine operator against existing vacancy of Assistant Grade-I (Mechanical). As petitioners fulfils the qualitative requirements of the post and claiming the differences. Pay scale...

Si Prakash Singh Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant is Sub Inspector (SI) in Delhi Police. The applicant has stated that a departmental enquiry (DE) was initiated against him on 7.4.2003 and summary of allegations with list of witnesses and documents was served upon him by the inquiry officer on 23.4.2003. On 23.5.2003, a revised list of prosecution witnesses (PWs) was issued.The charges were framed against the applicant on 7.7.2003 by the inquiry officer on the basis of the statement of the PWs and on 25.7.2003, the applicant filed his defence statement. The inquiry officer submitted his findings on 13.8.2003 and the applicant submitted his representation to the disciplinary authority against these findings on 01.10.2003. The disciplinary authority by its order dated 11.11.2003 imposed upon him a punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. The punishment was to run concurrently with the punishment already awarded to him vide order dated 01.8.2003. Th...

Magnet Trading and Chit Fund (P) Vs. Assistant Commissioner

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21-3-2003 for the assessment year 1994-95, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That the assessment order as well as appellate order is wrong, illegal and against the facts of the case, hence not sustainable under law. 2. That the appellant had taken 13 grounds for appeal but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong and unjustified in passing the assessment order without considering the merits of the case and without deciding each of the grounds independently, which is contrary to the spirit and mandatory directions of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi vide ITAT order dated 25-10-2002 in this case in ITA No. 3842/Del./96, which are revenue-produced as under: 4. In view of the aforesaid, we do not feel obliged to go into the merits of the case but in, being fair to both the parties, we set aside t...

Ece Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)11

1. These are two appeals by the same assessee against two different orders of the learned CIT(A) for asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01. As common facts are involved in these two appeals and further as the...(sic) interconnected in the two assessment years, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being decided by a common order.2. Shri Ajay Vohra and Shri Prakash Narayan, advocates and Smt. Rashmi Kapoor, chartered accountant appeared for the assessee whereas Shri Sunil Aggarwal, senior Departmental Representative represented the Revenue.3. Before proceeding to adjudicate the grounds taken in this appeal by the assessee and additional grounds admitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, we consider it proper to briefly narrate the facts of this matter, which are as under: 3.1 The assessee company was manufacturing various electrical equipments like transformers, switches, switchgears, bulbs, lamps and tubes, etc. It was having various factories at various places in the co...

Ramesh Batta Vs. Dy Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28-3-2002 for assessment year 1998-99. Shri O.P. Sapra, advocate appeared for the assessee whereas Dr. Balwan, DR represented the revenue.2. First ground of appeal challenges the sustenance of addition of Rs. 4,37,636 made by the assessing officer in the hands of the assessee under the head "Business income". Facts concerning this issue are as follows. The assessee took on lease an orchard for collection of fruits. The orchard was situated at the residential complex of Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, the organization of Government of India. The terms of lease were corroborated in the agreement dated 22-5-1995, which was executed on behalf of the President of India by the Director of the Academy in favour of Shri Ramesh Batta, the assessee. The contract was for three years i.e., 1996-97 and 1997-98 and was concluded on 31-12-1997. In terms of this lease the 2nd party i.e.,...

Aggarwal Mitra Mandal Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)106ITD531(Delhi)

1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of learned Director of (Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi dated 19.7.2002 passed Under Section 12AA refusing to grant registration applied for by the assessee Under Section 12A.2. The assessee in the present case is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It applied for its registration Under Section 12A(a) belatedly on 15.1.2002. Alongwith the said application, copies of certificates of registration, memorandum of understanding, rules and regulations and receipts and payments account for the year ending 31.3.1999, 31.3.2000 and 31.3.2001 were also filed by the assessee. After examination of the said application as well as the accompanying documents, the learned D.I.(Exemption) found that object Clause Nos. 3(1) and 3(2) were for the benefit of a specific caste, viz., Vaish and since these clauses were in conflict with the provisions of Section 13(1)(b), he required the assessee to offer its explana...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Padam Prakash (Huf)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)104TTJ(Delhi)989

1. In these appeals, question of taxability of compensation enhanced by Courts, after it was awarded by Collector, under the Land Acquisition Act is involved. The question has been referred for consideration of Special Bench.The regular Bench while hearing appeal of Shri Om Prakash (HUF) found that different Benches of Tribunal, at different places, are interpreting Section 45(5) of IT Act inserted by Finance Act, 1987 differently and there is a divergence of opinion on the issue. Some Benches have held that amendment and introduction of Sub-section (5) of Section 45 has not made any difference to the application of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. whereas other Benches have held above decision is no more applicable and enhanced compensation awarded by Courts is liable to be taxed in the year of receipt. Details of cases in which divergent opinions have been expressed are listed in paras 3 and 4 of order of ref...

Amjad Khan Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ314

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 2001 challenges the order dated 17.10.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/1999 whereby the learned Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and further vide his order dated 18.10.2001 sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was also given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:On 2nd April, 1999 at about 11.20 a.m. Duty Constable Manoj Kumar posted at Hindu Rao Hospital informed:P.S. Shalimar Bagh that one Ismail aged about 38 years, resident of 577, Haidarpur, Delhi had been 'brought dead' in the hospital by one Jenab W/o Shabbir Khan R/o 677, Haidarpur, Delhi. DD No. 16-A was recorded on this information and was entrusted to SI Inder Lal for investigation. SI Inder Lal along with Const. Rajbir Singh went to ...

Prem Chand S/O Shri Chhaju Ram Through the Superintendent, Central Jai ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4712

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Appellant is aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 29th January, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.36/1999. By the impugned judgment and order he was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, by an order of the same date, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In the event of his failure to deposit the fine, he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2. The broad facts leading up to this appeal are that on the evening of 5th February, 1996, the Appellant is alleged to have severely beaten his wife, Maina (deceased). She raised a hue and cry and the neighbours in the jhuggi colony intervened to save her from further beating. The beat constable of the area was called to the spot but when he reached there, the Appellant ran away.3. After the incident, the deceased was afraid of spending the night...