Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of steel tabular poles as mentioned in the statement of facts in the appeal memo and claimed the classification under Heading No. 7308 of Central Excise Tariff.Show-cause notices were issued for classifying the steel tabular poles under Heading No. 7306.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. We find that this issue is already settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Quality Steel Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE . In this case, the Tribunal held that steel tabular poles are classifiable under Heading No. 7306.90 of Central Excise Tariff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quality Steel Products reported as 1996 (82) ELT A-106. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed....

Devasthan Vibhag Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR415

1. The appellants filed this appeal against rejection of refund claim of Rs. 2,81,370/-. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to get the refund of tax. The only dispute is that the adjudicating authority is within the jurisdiction of Jaipur-I Commissionerate. The appellant deposited the tax within the jurisdiction of Jaipur-II. Ld. Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the letter dated 9-1-2007 of the Addl. Accounts Officer, Jaipur Commissionerate-I addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner, Devasthan Dept. Bikaner.2. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the refund claim as the deposit was made within the jurisdiction of the other adjudicating authority.3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that there is no dispute that the appellant is entitled to get the refund of tax. In any event, the appellant depo...

Shri R.K. Rastogi S/O Shri Hari Dev Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Annexure A-1 order passed by the Divisional Operating Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad, is under challenge. We may just refer to the essential facts, so as to appreciate the circumstances, in which the above order was passed.2. The applicant was working in the cadre of Assistant Station Master and during 1991, in view of an accident, he had been taking treatment and had joined back on 06.08.1991. The certificate issued to him prescribed light work for a period of three months, it is his claim that he was remaining under medical treatment. However, it so happened on 09.12.1993. His superior officer had asked him to work independently as Assistant Station Master. Obviously, he had declined on a plea of ill health, and had remained away, and subsequently produced medical certificate to show that he is under treatment. Later on, he was prepared to join on 25.03.1994. After obtaining medical certificate, he had been admitted for duty. A charge sheet was issued to him on 15.02.1994, ...

Girish Baboo S/O Shri Shyali Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this case the facts are that applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Mail Deliverer, Nagla Jula District, Mainpuri w.e.f.1.8.1994 and satisfactorily performed duties. An examination was conducted in 2003 for promotion of such departmental candidates to the Postman cadre and its results (alongwith vacancies of the year 2002-03) declared on 30.4.2004. After declaring result, seven vacancies remained unfilled ( 5- outsider quota and 2 - ST quota). Thereafter, 2004 examination was held. However, vacancies were not announced prior to this exam. The Recruitment Rules do provide that vacancies be announced prior to commencement of the examination. The result of the 2004 examination alongwith vacancies one vacancy of departmental quota and one of outsider quota was declared on 22.12.2004. Applicant secured pass marks in this examination and was placed at serial No. 6 on list of selected candidates. However, no one against departmental quota qualified, hence vacancy of departmental...

Shri B.K. Singh S/O Shri Gian Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant is a Commercial Clerk working in the Agra Division in the North Central Railway. He commenced service as Booking Clerk in 1986 and was later on promoted as Head Booking Clerk. While working in the Agra Station, a charge sheet was issued to him, on 29.11.1999. It has been alleged that on 28.07.1999, while under surveillance, the Chief Vigilance Inspector and his team had found him engaged in certain malpractices while in the booking office, which was sufficient to throw doubts about his integrity. The statement of allegations referred to three incidents as lapses and although the initial charge sheet referred to only two charges, this was corrected, including a third charge as well. We will go to the details of the allegations a little later.2. Applicant had denied the charges, and thereupon inquiry had been arranged. On the basis of the report submitted by the officer so nominated, Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Jhansi had, by his order dated 19.04.2002, imposed a pen...

Amadeus Global Travel Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)767

1. Appeals No. 2143, 2144 & 2145/Del/2000 are directed against the common order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi, dated 23.3.2000 in an appeal against assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).1.2. Appeals No. 1022, 1023 & 1024/Del/2005 are directed against the common order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXIX, New Delhi, dated 28.12.2005 in an appeal against assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 250 of the Act.1.3. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by common order.2. The appellant, a tax resident of Spain has developed a fully automatic computer reservation and distribution system, with the ability to perform comprehensive information, communications, reservations, ticketing, distribution and related functions on a worldwide basis for the travel industry, particularly participating airlines, hotels etc(h...

Rbf Rig Corpn. Lic (Rbfrc) as Agent Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)297ITR228(Delhi)

1. The Special Bench has been constituted Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the recommendation of regular bench to dispose of the following issue: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, tax paid by the employer on the income of the assessee is entitled to exemption Under Section 10( 10CC) of the Income-tax Act? The Special Bench constituted vide order dated September 7, 2007 is to dispose of entire appeal / appeals, referred to the Bench.2. The facts leading to the constitution of Special Bench are that after the introduction of clause (10CC) in Section 10 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 by the Finance Act, 2002, it was claimed by the assessee as an employee that where the employer has paid tax on the salary of the employee, the tax on such tax as perquisite is exempt under the above provision. In other words, it is not possible to have double grossing up. However, Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s B.J. Services Co. Middle East Ltd did not accept th...

Ntpc Ltd. Employees Provident Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)285

1. The abovementioned six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the combined order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 18th Oct., 2006 for financial years 1999-2000 to 2004-05. As common grounds have been taken in all these six appeals and further as they arise out of the combined order of the learned CIT(A), for the sake of convenience these appeals are being decided by a common order.2. Shri Ved Jain FCA, along with Smt. Rano Jain appeared for the assessee whereas Shri M.L. Meena Departmental Representative represented the Revenue.3. At the outset the learned Counsel for the assessee clarified the preliminary issue relating to approval of COD. He submitted that in view of the decision in the case of Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corpn. Ltd. v. Asstt. CAT and Anr. , and in view of the decision in the case of CIT v. Combustion Engineering Inc. (USA) (2007) 295 ITR 70 (Mad), the clearance from the committee constituted under the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court is required only whe...

Medicare Investments Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)304ITR44(Delhi)

1. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President for considering and deciding the following question which incorporates the only issue arising from the appeal of the assessee which is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, dt. 13th Feb., 2001: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the learned AO in respect of the disallowance of Rs. 1,57,95,000 on account of loss on sale of debentures.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the controversy are as follows. The assessee is an investment company which filed its return of income for the year under appeal on 19th Nov., 1996 declaring a total income at a negative figure i.e. loss of Rs. 2,07,98,394. In the said return, income from interest and dividend was shown by the assessee at Rs. 1,24,68,142 and Rs. 16,19,488, respectively whereas loss on sale of debentures was shown at Rs. 1,57,94,206. In Sch. 8 to the balance sheet and...

Nalwa Investments Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30-5-2002 of the learned Commissioner (Appeal)-XVI, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 1999-2000.2.1 The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal by the assessee are as follows: The assessee is a company. It is a non-banking finance company registered with the RBI. The main activity of the assessee company is purchase and sale of shares, advancing loans and providing guarantees. The assessee is an investment company and makes investments in shares of Jindal group of companies. Through the assessee company the Jindal family exercise control and management over the Jindal group of companies.2.2 The assessee filed a return of income for assessment year 1999-2000 declaring loss of Rs. 3,74,05,126. In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had claimed interest income to the tune of Rs. 95,06,780 on loans and securities.The assessee claimed to have paid interes...