Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Sahara India International Vs. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)350

ORDER1. The Petitioner challenges an order dated 22-3-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT), Central Circle-6, New Delhi under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect:Having regard to the nature and complexity of your accounts and interest of the revenue and being of the opinion, it is necessary so to do, I hereby direct you to get your accounts audited under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for financial year 2002-03 pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 by M/s. P. Bholusaria & Co., 2611, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and to furnish a report on such audit in the prescribed proforma duly signed and verified by the CA. The audit report under Section 142(2A) should be furnished by you to the undersigned within a period of 105 days from the date of the directions received by you.2. The Petitioner sought for and was provided detailed reasons that led to the making of the above order. The Petitioner c...

Cit Vs. Saraswati Kunj Co-operative House Building Society

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]287ITR22(Delhi)

Learned counsel for the revenue relies on the observations made by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT : [1997]227ITR172(SC) in support of her submission that interest is always treated as income whether earned from fixed deposits or from savings bank account. In the present case, the assessed is a co-operative house building society established with the specific objective of purchasing agricultural land for development as plots which then are allotted only to its own members. The agreement between the Government of Haryana and the assessed stipulated, inter alia, that the society shall keep 30 per cent. of the amount realised by it from the plot holders from time to time in a deposit for being utilised by the society towards meeting the cost of internal development work in the colony. Thereafter a bilateral agreement between the assessed and the Government stipulates that the society shall not derive any profit out of the sale of the plo...

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Yogesh Sharma, Associate Professor, Centre ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4322; 133(2006)DLT218; 2006(91)DRJ147

Vijender Jain, A.C.J.1. The appellant bank has impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2005. The present litigation is a manifestation of strong arm tactics prevailing in India today with regard to the role of banks like the appellant and the method of recovery of dues. It seems that the normal remedy through process of law seems inappropriate to the appellant thereby using extra judicial methods for recovery of the dues. To say the least, if it is allowed to happen, people's faith in the rule of law will be shaken and more and more people will start using mafia power to achieve their objective. Whether it is a healthy sign for a growing economy like ours is a question which we have to answer in this appeal.2. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned Counsel for the appellant bank has vehemently contended that the writ petition filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge was not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has rel...

Sgs India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kapoor

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)ILLJ1081Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Labour Court-II, Delhi dated 7.8.2004 whereby the evidence of the management was closed and the matter was fixed for evidence of workman.2. The short issue involved is - whether the Tribunal should have closed the evidence when the cross examination of MW-2, a witness of management was recorded and no other witness on behalf of the management was present.3. A perusal of the various order-sheets would show that in this case both sides have been taking adjournment one after another and the recording of evidence stretched over a period of two years. Issues were framed on 14.3.2002 and thereafter workman evidence was concluded on 25.8.2003 and the case for management evidence was fixed for 20.10.2003.4. It is seen from the record that management filed affidavit of one witness first and when his cross examination was concluded then management filed affidavit of second witness and thereafter when his...

Shiva Gases Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)236; [2008]302ITR318(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated 8th September, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No. 1326/Del/2000 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97.2. The sole question that has been urged by the assessed is with regard to disallowance of a loss of Rs. 45,50,000/- claimed by it on the sale of its investments being shares in M/s. Bhagwati Gases Limited. The Assessing Officer had concluded that the sales did not represent genuine transactions and that they were manipulated by the assessed with its sister concerns with a view to reduce its tax liability.3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disagreed with the Assessing Officer but on an appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal affirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer and that is how the assessed is before us.4. The broad facts of the case indicate that the assessed sold a large number of shares in M/s. Bhagwati Gases Limited to six of its sister concerns. The s...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Swaroop Chemicals (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This group of appeals, which raises common issue, has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it goes against the Revenue.2. By the order-in-original duty demands were confirmed and penalties imposed on the ground that when the goods were returned manufacturing process was undertaken and the assessee's case was not covered under the purview of rule l73H.3. Various demand notices were issued to the assessees on the ground that they had received excisable goods for reprocessing without proper permission in violation of rule 51A read with rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The assessee's defence was that the product pesticides had a shelf life, and many a time unsold pesticides, which were not of standard quality were returned to them for reprocessing and while reprocessing the ingredients were added and the lump formation was subjected to grinding. According to them, they had given prior declaration to the department before resorted...

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, a sugar manufacturer, inter alia produces molasses which is stored in steel tanks. On 9-7-98 a drain pipe of the steel tank brust and molasses which was stored in the tank got drained off. Under the impugned order, the appellant has been directed to pay the Central Excise duty due on the molasses so lost. The demand is under Rule 49 and 9 of the Central Excise Rules.3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the revenue authorities should have allowed remission of the duty as molasses in question had been got lost due to natural causes, in terms of proviso to Rule 49.4. Aforesaid rules relate to time and manner of payment of duty. Rule 49 stipulates that payment of duty shall not be required until goods are about to be issued out of the place of manufacture/storage. Rule 9 stipulates that no excisable goods shall be removed from place of production/storage without payment of duty. In the present case, clearly, th...

Sajjan Kumar S/O Jugti Ram and R.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants have challenged Annexure A-1 dated 2.8.2006 whereby announcing the proposed recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk against vacancies/points available or to be available in future for regularly appointed Group 'D' employees in their respective State Cadres against 10% quota prescribed by the Government, the decision to hold Departmental Qualifying Examination, 2006 on 23.9.2006, has been circulated and applications invited from eligible candidates.2. It has been stated that applicants had joined respondents as Peon (Group D) in November, 1981 and have been working as such eversince.Vide Annexure A-1 one of the eligibility conditions for appearing in the examination has been stated as The candidates should not be more than 45 years of age at the closing date for receipt of applications.The learned Counsel of applicants stated that hitherto Government and Staff Selection Commission have been fixing 50 years of age for eligibility for appearing in such examinations....

Constable Sushil Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, by virtue of this OA, assails an order passed by the respondents on 25.10.2004 whereby after departmental inquiry, three years' service has been forfeited permanently with reduction of pay and the suspension period as not spent on duty. Also assails an order passed in appeal dated 10.5.2005 upholding the punishment.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that the applicant, who while posted as a Constable (Munshi) in the Kot, i.e., Armory had lost two revolvers and one pistol in the, was placed under suspension on 2.7.1997 along with one Head Constable and two other Constables.Summary of allegations served upon the applicant alleges that applicant along with two other Munshis were directly responsible for care and custody of arms and ammunitions in the Kot. They have failed to perform their duties property and committed gross misconduct and on their negligence, loss of revolvers and pistol had taken place. A charge when framed was defended; inqu...

Veena JaIn Vs. Pushpa Builders Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Through this complaint, the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 9,11,820 alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP inas much as that she could not put the shop purchased by her in use because opposite party (hereinafter referred to as OP) despite assurance did not remove the platform built inside the shop. 2. Complainant is the owner/allottee in possession of the shop bearing Unit No. A-1, Ground Floor, Harbans Bhavan-1, Nangal Rai, New Delhi-45. She had purchased the said shop from the OP vide agreement dated December 27, 1986 executed between the complainant and the OP. At the time of delivering the possession of the shop, the OP had represented and assured the complainant as well as her husband that the platform built and raised by the OP inside the said shop shall be removed and lifted by the OP very soon for providing the light and air to the basement portion under the shop of the complainant. The said platform measures 46 in length...