Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Ajanta Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal whereby the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E, dated 16-3-95 was denied to the Pipes used in the factory on the ground that these are not capital goods.3. The contention of the appellant is that the Pipes manufactured in the factory was used for carrying water to Emulsion tank and to the Tube cooling Zone for cooling pipes during manufacture. The overall function of the pipes in question to carry water to various machines for creation of cooling effects in various chambers of the plant as water is used on work machines such as lathes, shapper machine, milling machine, drilling machine etc. The contention is that as per the definition of relevant period the parts, components and accessory of machines and machinery and plant covered under the scope of capital goods. The Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16-3-95 provides exemption in respect of capital goods defined under Rule 57Q manufactured and used within the factory prod...

Ms Verma, Health Superintendent Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. None appeared for the applicants even on the second call. Shri Nasir Ahmed, leaned counsel for respondents is heard. Accordingly, Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is invoked.2. By virtue of this OA, applicants, who are working in Groups C & D under Ministry of Defence at Station Health Organization, Agra Cantt.(UP), seek extension of benefit of risk allowance as per letter dated 30.4.2002.3. Learned Counsel for respondents stated that letter dated 30.4.2002 has been superceded by an order passed by the respondents 17.11.2005 where the categories of the applicants have not been included as the categories to which the patient care allowance (PCA) is admissible.Accordingly, it is stated that reliance placed on 30.4.2002 letter is misconceived.4. In rejoinder, applicant has annexed a decision of this Tribunal in B.M. Singh Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (3) ATJ 301 wherein relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal at Jabalpur Bench in Rajendra P...

Shri J.S. Verma S/O Late Shri Mool Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. In this OA, applicant is being aggrieved by a penalty imposed upon him, which has the effect of reducing his pensionary benefits post-retirement, i.e., the effect of penalty being carried out, the date of retirement is held to be legal by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in V.V. Ramaiah v. Union of India and Ors. (OA-712/90) decided on 21.7.1993, which was followed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Satya Pal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (OA-2282/2002) decided on 16.4.2004.3. Applicant through this OA seeks extension of the benefit and revision of pensionary benefits on the basis the aforesaid orders with a direction to the respondents to issue corrigendum.4. On the other hand, learned ounsel for respondents stated that allowing the same benefits to the applicants, which have been accorded in Satya Pal Singh's case (supra), is not tenable, as the decision delivered in one case cannot be applied in other cases.5. I have carefully considered the contentions of the part...

Satyapal Singh, S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged the order dated 02.06.2004 whereby his request for compassionate appointment has been rejected, on the ground that Shri Ranvir Singh, Ex. GDS MD, Shahnagar, Timarua, Etah, had expired on 19.6.1999 leaving behind his widow and two major and married sons. Out of them, one son is employed in defence services living separately. There is 0.850 Hectare land having annual income of Rs.12,000/- therefrom with the family. The family is living in its own house, there is no social liability of family like education or marriage of dependent children. The family has been paid an amount of Rs.52,870/- as terminal benefits. Accordingly, it has not been found a fit case for compassionate appointment by the Circle Relaxation Committee even on reconsideration (page 11).2. It is submitted by the applicant that he had earlier filed OA 1424/2003 wherein the Court was pleased to direct the respondents to go into the detailed reasons given in the judgment and recons...

Anil Kumar S/O Late Shri Jai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant seeks appointment on compassionate grounds to Group D post.2. Father of applicant, who was a skilled fitter in the Railways, was removed from service. Later on, on an appeal filed by the widow, an order passed on 11.11.2003 converted the punishment on reduction to compulsory retirement and accordingly family pension and other retiral dues were paid to the family of the deceased.3. Shri B.S. Mainee, learned Counsel appearing for applicant contended that if applicant had been paid the retiral dues he is also entitled to compassionate appointment, as the family is indigent.4. On the other hand, Shri A.P. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that compulsory retirement of applicant was by way of penalty and by referring to the Master Circular No. 16 of Railways as well as OM dated 18.4.1985, it is stated that compassionate appointment would be accorded to the widow or the family members of the decea...

Shri Prakash Hully S/O Late Shri D. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Union of India v. Rasila Ram and Ors. while considering any other matter falling for jurisdiction under Section 3 (q)(v) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, clearly ruled that the Tribunal would not be conferred any jurisdiction in respect of an order passed by the competent authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short PP Act 1971) for eviction.3. In the light of above, the challenge of the applicant to an order passed on 23.2.2006 is being opposed by the learned ounsel for respondents on the ground that having been declared as an unauthorized occupant and retaining the government accommodation in this capacity, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the applicant.4. It is trite that the government accommodation is a concession provided to a government servant. However, any instruction issued by the Railway Board is a statutory instruction supplementing the statutory rules and are binding. As per Railway...

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Rajeev Tandon

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108ITD560(Delhi)

1. The revenue has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed in appeal No. 407/03-04 dated 20.5.2004 on the following ground: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) erred in not upholding the finding of the AO that cash credits of Rs. 34,66,242/- introduced by the assessee in his books by way of gifts remained unexplained and were, therefore, liable to be taxed as his deemed income Under Section 68 of the I. T. Act.2. Briefly stated the facts relating to the disposal of this ground of appeal are that the assessee, Shri Rajeev Tandon is a partner in a firm selling sarees and during the year under consideration he received two gifts amounting to Rs. 34,66,242/- from two NRIs Shri P.B. Bhardwaj Rs. 30,04,300/- ($ 65,000) and Shri Surender Khoka Rs. 4,61,942/- ($ 10,000). The AO noticed that these persons who made the gifts to the assessee were not related to the assessee. So he asked the assessee to file evidence regarding the credit worthiness of these pers...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Graphic Era Educational Society

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Delhi)608

1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A), dt. 4th Oct., 2004 for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000-01, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 11 of the IT Act, 1961. Following are the common issues in both the years: 1. That the learned CIT(A)-II, Dehradun, has erred in law and on facts in holding that society fulfils conditions for exemption unders. 11. 2. That the learned CIT(A)-II, Dehradun, has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of treatment of voluntary receipts as business receipts. 3. The order of the learned CIT(A)-II, Dehradun, be set aside and that of the AO be restored.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The assessee is a society registered on 3rd Sept., 1996 by Registrar of Firms, Societies & Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Garhwal Region, Dehradun. The society is also registered under Section 12A of the IT Act vide CIT's order dt.31st May, 1999. The objects of the s...

Dy. Cit Vs. Srei International Finance Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. ITA 4881/Del./2003 is an appeal by the revenue and ITA 4643/Del./03 is an appeal by the assessee. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 8-8-2003 of the Commissioner (Appeals)XII, New Delhi relating to the assessment year 2000-01.2. First we shall take up ITA 4881/Del./03 the appeal by the revenue.The first ground of appeal by the revenue reads as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to allow depreciation at a higher rate of 40% on leased vehicles as against 20% allowed by the assessing officer even though the vehicles were not used by the assessee in the business of running them on hire." 3. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC), money-changers and investment activities. In the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation on heavy vehicles like trucks etc. ...

FabIndia Overseas Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. In this case, the appeal of the assessee was decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi on 5-12-2002. The assessee moved a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) in respect of that order, which was disposed of vide order dated 28-2-2006. As per paragraph 3 of that order, ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the appeal were recalled for adjudication, as no order thereon was passed. That is how, this appeal before us.2. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are reproduced, below for the sake of ready reference : 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the exclusion made by the DCIT (Assessment) of the exchange rate fluctuation proceeds amounting to Rs. 3,89,964 from the total turnover, whereas the same was received by the assessee within the period stipulated under the Sub section (2)(ii) of Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not directing deletion of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.3.1 The assessee claimed de...