Delhi Court October 2007 Judgments

J.P. Sharma S/O Late Shri C.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. On the consent of the parties, the matter had been taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of.2. The applicant has impugned certain proceedings being the minutes of the Senior Establishment Board held on 21st June, 2007, dated 10.7.2007 to the extent that he has been excluded from consideration for posting outside India. It is titled as the approved minutes of 191st Meeting of the Board. We may briefly advert to the relevant circumstances so as to appreciate the contentions that have been raised by the parties.3. Applicant belongs to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and is working as Stenographer. The officers and staff of the Department are liable to undergo transfer to the Indian Missions/Posts located abroad. It is evident that transfers generally to outside countries are welcomed by the persons concerned, but there are also stations, where there might be some amount of reluctance for some officers to go.Respondents have divided the 166 countries where the In...

ito Vs. Kiran Dev

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the separate orders of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1988-89, in the matter of imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that assessee was in receipt of enhanced compensation amounting to Rs. 96,276 from Haryana Urban Development Authority as a result of award of Additional District & Session Judge, Faridabad, the assessing officer stated that the assessee filed his return of income on 20-4-2001, wherein he has offered enhanced compensation and claimed deductions under Section 48(2), and the net capital gain has been declared at Rs. 40,639. The gross capital gain declared in the return was accepted by the assessing officer. With regard to the interest on enhanced compensation, the assessing officer observed that the assessee received interest on...

Gujarat Guardian Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Delhi)565

1. These are appeals by assessee and Revenue against Order dt. 26th April, 2005 of CIT (A)-X, New Delhi, relating to asst. yr. 1996-97.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 1.5 in appeal of the assessee and grounds of appeal of the Revenue can be conveniently decided together. Ground Nos. 1 to 1.5 raised by the assessee read as follows: 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in allowing payment of export commission only to the extent of 5 per cent of FOB value of exports as against 12.5 per cent invoking provisions of Section 40A(2) of the IT Act, even while observing that the foreign collaborator was instrumental for promotion of export sales achieved by the appellant. 1.1.1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that increase in payment of export commission to 12.5 per cent from 5 per cent to nominee/affiliates of the collaborator of the appellant was excessive and unreasonable and the action of the AO in invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2) and Section 92 of the Act was jus...

Rohtas Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)775

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed in Appeal No. 135/05-06/GGN dt. 2nd May, 2006 on 4 grounds of appeal mainly raising the issue whether the assessee is entitled to the refund of Rs. 4 lakhs together with interest paid in pursuant to the directions of Tribunal issued during the stay proceedings and due to the final order of Tribunal in which the assessment framed by the AO in the treatment of Rohtas (HUF) has been held to be null and void.1. Briefly stated the facts relating to the issue are that the an assessment Under Section 147 was framed by the AO vide order dt. 14th March, 2002 at an income of Rs. 70,47,356, against which an appeal was preferred by the assessee before Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dt. 29th Sept., 2004 annulled the assessment framed against the assessee, Shri Rohtas, in the status of Rohtas (HUF). Thereafter, the assessee moved an application Under Section 154 before the AO alleging therein that the effect of the said ord...

Mohan Machines Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ239; 2007(122)ECC423; 2007(148)LC423(Delhi); 2008(225)ELT339(Del)

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The petitioner seeks a direction for quashing the order of the Joint Director General, of Foreign Trade, dated 24-1-1997, (hereafter 'the impugned order') in appeal, issued under the Foreign Trade and Development Act, 1992 (hereafter 'the Act').2. Two purchases orders were placed on the petitioner on 20th September 1984, and 11th March 1985, by the National Diary Development Board, ('NDDB') under a world Bank project. The NDDB is, a Government of India Enterprise. According to the purchase orders, the petitioner had to fabricate and supply 21 barrels for broad guage Rail Milk tankers. The first purchase order was for supply of 11 barrels and the second was for the supply of 10 barrels. The Broad gauge Rail Milk Tankers were to have stainless steel sheet content of 59701 Kgs., suitable for carrying 40 thousand liters per barrel, complete with all other components and fittings for a FOB value of Rs. 60,42,000/-. As the supplies were to be made under a World Bank pr...

Kushwaha Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Del)236

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been made in respect of the assessment year 1981-82. Although as many as 8 questions have been referred for our opinion, we are of the view that only two of them really arise for our consideration. These two questions are:1. Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessed company was not entitled to deduction in respect of traveling expenses of Rs.1,17,525/- claimed by it, is based on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of law as contained in Section 37(1), 37(3) and 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Further, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessed company was not entitled to weighted deduction u/s, 35B of the Act in respect of the aforesaid traveling expenses, simply because the same were allegedly not otherwise allowable as a deduction by virtue of Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 19622. The assessed is...

Rohit Kumar @ Raju S/O Late Sh. Om Prakash Vs. State of Nct Delhi Thro ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3561; 2007(98)DRJ714

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Petitioner herein had earlier filed Crl.M.C.No.2952/2007 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 31st May, 2007 and 25th July, 2007 passed by Sh. Rakesh Tewari, Addl.Sessions Judge in Criminal Complaint case, whereby he had issued non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.2. In that petition, it was also prayed that Addl.Sessions Judge be directed to bail out the petitioner in accordance with law and petitioner undertook that he will appear before the court of Addl.Sessions Judge, if directed and co-operate with the prosecution of the case on the next date of hearing, that is, 19th September, 2007.3. On that petition, this Court on 17th September, 2007passed the following order:Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the execution of process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. issued against the petitioner is stayed till 19th September, 2007 provided the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as...

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)562; [2009]311ITR405(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) in respect of the assessment year 1979-80:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the pre-operative expenditure of Fuel Injection Equipment Project amounting to Rs.20,14,158/- was a capital expenditure?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs.41,666/- on the ground that the same was not disallowable Under Section 37(3) read with rule 6B2. With regard to the second question, the tax effect of the amount in question is quite inconsequential and, thereforee, we decline to answer this question and return the reference unanswered.3. The first question is really the only substantive question that would require our consideration.4. The assessed is a company which manufactures f...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narinder Mohan Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Del)129; [2009]311ITR425(Delhi)

S. Muralidhar, J.1. These two cases are references made to this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act'). The questions referred for two Assessment Years are more or less similar. Relevant to the Assessment Year 1976-77, the following questions of law have been referred for our opinion in ITA No. 2601/Del/1979:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 5,06,076 shares being bonus shares of M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd ('MMBL'). Received by the assessed did not represent funds of the trust invested in the said concern for purposes of Section 13(4) of the Act?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the prohibited category of persons mentioned in Section 13(3) did not have substantial interest in MMBL in which the funds of the assessed were invested and, ther...

Kolmet Builders Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ215

S. Muralidhar, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the Respondents in each of them, i.e. the power distribution companies, are justified in clubbing the consumption against two or more separate electricity connections given to each of the Petitioners and thereby levying a higher rate of tariff.Background facts: Kolmet Builders2.1 The facts relevant for the first petition by Kolmet Builders is that there are three separate electricity connections installed in No. 7B Pusa Road, Delhi for non-domestic purposes. The Petitioner is a registered partnership firm of which Dr. Ashwani Mehta is a partner. It is carrying out the business of building construction and also running a nursing home under the name of the Kolmet Hospital at 7B Pusa Road, New Delhi. Originally the sanctioned load for the three electricity connections was 8 KW, 18KW and 18 KW respectively.2.2 Under the VDS Scheme of 1995, the Petitioner applied to the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut...