Delhi Court November 2007 Judgments

Ms Mayawati Vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)113TTJ(Delhi)178

1. These cross appeals, arising out of the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) dated 15.11.2006 for A.Y. 2003-04 are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Dr. Rakesh Gupta Advocate, along with Shri Ashwani Taneja FCA and Shri Tarun Kumar Advocate, appeared for the assessee whereas Shri B.Koteshwara Rao Sr. DR represented the revenue. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in: 1 deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made on account of claim of gift from Shri Pankaj Jain by the assessee which was not found genuine by the AO. 2 deleting the addition of Rs. 40,68,450/- and Rs. 22,03,850/-made on account of claim of gift of property from Shri Ashok Jain & Veena Jain respectively which were not found genuine by the AO.4. Before adjudicating these grounds, we consider it proper to narrate the factual background and the orders passed by the departmental authorities in relation to the main issues involved. The facts of the matter...

Van Oord Acz India (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)112ITD79(Delhi)

1. The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT (A) passed in appeal No. 34/2006-07/CIT (A)-XX dated 30-3-2007 on the following grounds: 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of claim of mobilization and demobilization expenses of Rs. 8,65,57,909/-, reimbursed by the appellant to Van Oord ACZ Marine Contractors BV, Netherlands, (VOAMC), invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) did not apply, since the aforesaid amount reimbursed by the appellant did not constitute income of VOAMC liable to tax in India and consequently the appellant was not required to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. 2.1 Without prejudice, that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that ...

Galileo International Inc. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. ITA Nos. l733/Del/201, 2473/Del/2000, 2474/Del/2000 and 2475/Del/2000 pertaining to asstt. Year 1995-96 to 1998-99 respectively arc directed against orders of learned CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi dated 5.3.2001 and 7.3.2000 in an appeal against assessment framed Under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).1.1 ITA Nos. 820 to 823/Del/2005 are directed against common order of learned CIT(A)XXIX, New Delhi dated 15.12.2004 in an appeal against assessment framed Under Section 143(3) read with Section 250 of the Act.1.2 Cross Objection Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 50/Del/2006 by the Revenue are in respect of ITA No. 1733, 2473 to 2475/Del/2000. C.O. Nos. 51 to 54 of 2006 by the revenue are in respect of ITA Nos. 820 to 823 of 2005.Since common issues are involved in all these appeals and cross objections were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Galileo International Inc. (the 'Appellant'), a resident of USA, is in the business of maintai...

Ram NaraIn Jha Vs. T.M. Apartments Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ724

Hima Kohli, J.1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 18.2.2003 passed by the Labour Court whereunder it was held that the petitioner workman was not entitled to any relief against the respondent management.2. Facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner workman was appointed as a lift operator with the respondent management w.e.f. 23.3.1991. Allegedly, the petitioner workman reported late to office on 24.1.1992 after which he was called to the Connaught Circus branch of the respondent management, but was made to sit there and was not allowed to work, and finally, on his refusal to sign certain papers, his services were terminated verbally by the respondent management on 28.11.1992, in an illegal manner, without giving any reasons, notice pay etc. As against the alleged termination, the petitioner workman served a demand notice dated 28.2.1992 on the respondent management, but having received no positive reply to the same, an industrial dispute was ...

Mr. Umesh Chandra Sood Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(99)DRJ682

Veena Birbal, J.1. Present is a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner wherein it is alleged that petitioner is a sportsman and has played various games for Delhi, the details of which are given in the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Ambedkar Stadium which is the only football playing field left in Delhi has been used for political purposes, such as holding political rallies etc. having no connection with football game. It is alleged that Ambedkar Stadium hosts over 700 football matches every year and is already under immense pressure due to lack of football infrastructure in Delhi. It is alleged that holding of political rallies and public functions at Ambedkar Stadium damages its grass and ground and the said damage takes months to repair. It is further alleged that when political rallies are held at nearby places such as at the Ramlila Grounds etc., Ambedkar Stadium becomes a place for people to squat, sleep, cook, eat, litter and also to answer the...

Havaldar Shital Prasad Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ496

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the case and for the quashing of the Instructions dated 9.5.2002; and for a direction to promote the Petitioner to the rank of Naib Subedar and that his seniority be counted with effect from 1.6.2002 having passed the Army English Certificate-II (AEC-II). The Petition discloses that the Petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 27.5.1982 in the rank of Sepoy. At that time the Petitioner was a metriculate, however without English being one of his subjects. There is some controversy as to whether the Petitioner was an Infantry Soldier or a Gunner. From the Counter of the Respondent it appears that he could have fulfilled these dual roles. The Petitioner has been promoted to the rank of Havaldar on 1.1.1999 without having cleared the AEC-II. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has cleared the Promotion Cadre Test on 27.6.2001, making him partially eligible for the promotion of N...

Smt. Bhauri Devi (Deceased) Through Her Legal Heirs Vs. Shri Mahender ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 146(2008)DLT117

Rekha Sharma, J.1. By this common order I shall dispose of RCR No. 32/07 and RCR No. 33/07.2. The short question which arises for consideration is whether in a petition under Section 14 read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller or the Additional Rent Controller are empowered to grant leave to defend to a tenant limited only to one of the several grounds raised by him in his application for leave to defend. In other words is it permissible to grant limited leave to defend?3. The facts relevant for disposal of the aforementioned issue as stated in the petition are as under:In the year 2002 the respondent landlord namely, Mahinder Kumar had filed four eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) bearing No. E-121/02 to 124/2002 against his four tenants namely late Smt. Bhauri Devi (now deceased) represented by her legal heirs, late Shri Gian Chand (now deceased) represented b...

R.B. Arora Vs. State Through Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(100)DRJ509

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. made by the petitioner an accused in case FIR No.2/1987 -CBI (SIU-X) dated 26th May, 1987, seeks quashing of (a) proceedings against him based on a charge sheet, filed on 18th November, 1993 and (b) order dated 25th November, 1993 whereby cognizance of alleged offences was taken against him.2. The facts in brief are that an amount of Rs.3.75 crore was advanced to M/s Keming Tools Co. Ltd. by C.V. Madan, erstwhile Branch Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Janakpuri, Delhi without any appraisal and sanction of competent authority. Later, the assistance of the petitioner was allegedly sought by M/s Keming Tools Co. Ltd. for regularization of the said loan and with that end in view an amount of Rs.10,002/- was paid to the petitioner by co-accused Satish Kumar Chopra. On an inquiry being held into the transaction, based on the report of such inquiry, a FIR No.2/1987 -CBI (SIU-X) under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC was registere...

Prem Singh Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1-2. These appeals are directed against common adjudication order No.SDE/(PKD)/III/93/2005 dated 13-7-2005 passed by Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement imposing total penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on Prem Singh, i.e., the appellant in appeal No. 618/05 and total penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each on Tarlochan Singh and Rajendra Singh, i.e., the appellants in Appeal Nos. 619/05 and 620/05 respectively besides ordering confiscation of Rs. 20,36,000 seized from Prem Singh and Rs. 81,750 seized from residence and person of the Rajendra Singh, i.e., the appellant in Appeal No. 618/05 and the appellant in Appeal No. 620/05 respectively to the credit of Central Government for the reason of purchasing and selling of foreign exchange without any previous general or special permission of RBI in contravention of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of FER Act, 1973. A show-cause notice dated 3-3-1992 was issued to the appellants asking them to explain why adjudication proceedings should not be held ...

Hind Motors (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ323CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Since the issue involved is short and the application for modification of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not appear to have been decided on merits, the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing by waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.2. It is evident from the record that the appellant made modification application on 30.6.2007 for modifying the stay order of pre-deposit, by stating that by the letter dated 16.5.2007, the ICICI Bank Ltd., had certified that the amount credited to the applicant was "commission only". The Appellate Commissioner without examining this ground proceeded on the footing that no documentary evidence for financial hardship was brought on record, which was not the ground taken in the modification application.3. The impugned order dismissing the appeal therefore is bad on the ground of non-application of mind and is hereby set-aside and the appeal stands restored to the file of Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction that the Appe...