Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Sh. Suresh, Vs. Sh. Ramesh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ700

J.M. Malik, J.1. The controversy in this case revolves around a Will executed by Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, Ex.PW-1/1, dated 4.1.1996 in favor of Ramesh, respondent No. 1, in respect of her service benefits with MCD and to the exclusion of the appellants and respondent No. 2 to 12, who are her children or their legal representatives. The learned ADJ vide his order dated 11.01.2007 found the Will to be valid and dismissed the objections raised by the appellants. The appellants in this appeal have questioned the order passed by the trial court. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the execution of Will wallows in suspicious circumstances and uncertainties. He enumerated the following points in support of his case. Firstly, Pratap Singh, Superintendent, CSE, Civil Lines Zone, Rajpur Road, stated that at the time of appointment of Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, who, was working as Sweeper in MCD department of Civil Lines had nominated first Bhartoo, her husband and after his de...

Pawan Yadav Vs. Joint Commissioner, Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]291ITR223(Delhi)

CM No. 2272/2007 (Exemption):1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. CM stands disposed of.I.T.A. 154/2007 and CM No. 2271/2007 (Stay)3. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated October 6, 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in I.T.A. No. 2967 (Del)/99 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97 and in I.T.A. No. 1240(Del)/2000 for the assessment year 1997-98.4. The only question that has arisen in this appeal is whether the assessed maintained an office in India for his business purposes. This is essentially a question of fact and the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessed was maintaining an office in India for his business purposes. We do not find any perversity in the view taken by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. The Tribunal has found that the assessed paid salaries amounting to Rs. 93,900 to some employees in India. Learned Counsel for the assessed informs us that this i...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Kulwant Rai

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007]291ITR36(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short to be referred as 'Act) challenging the order dated 14th February, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in IT(SS) No. 455 (Del) 2003 for block period assessment year 1991-92 to 14th February, 2001.2. The relevant facts of this case are that a search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Usha India Ltd. and assessed is one of the promoters of the said company. During the course of search one agreement to sell marked as AD 46 was seized from the premises of the assessed which was in respect of land situated at Daultabad Road, Shivana, Gurgaon. In this agreement it has been mentioned that an earnest money of Rs. 34,01,784/- will be paid by the transferee to transferor at the time of signing of this agreement and balance consideration of Rs. 1,36,07,140/- would be paid within the maximum period of three months, i.e., up to 16th April...

Nyco S.A. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Heard both sides and perused the records. The submission of the Sr.learned Counsel of the applicant is that the revenue authorities had erroneously treated the know-how transfer agreement as a consulting engineering service. It is being pointed out that the impugned findings are contrary to decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pfizer Ltd. .2. The perusal of the agreement brings out that the agreement is "to pass on the know-how as available with and used by NF in its own commercial production, as per the phased programme, to manufacture the Base Stocks and Finished Products as listed in Annexures I, II & III with the provision for the list to be expanded as mutually agreed from time to time between NF and JVC." 2.1.2 of the collaboration agreement.3. The finding in the impugned order does not seem to be sustainable.In view of the above legal position, the stay applications are allowed and recovery stayed till disposal of appeals....

Ramala Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT361TriDel

1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-3-2000, upholding the Order-in-Original disallowing Cenvat credit of a total amount of Rs. 1,33,871/-, imposing the penalty of the like amount and directing interest to be paid.2. According to the Revenue, the appellant who was engaged in the manufacture of V.P. sugar and molasses had wrongly availed Cenvat credit on welding electrodes under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, though these goods did not qualify the definition of "capital goods" thereunder. Despite the appellant being asked by letter dated 5-4-2002, to reverse the said credit, the appellant did not respond. The details, were sought and submitted about the use of welding electrodes show that the goods were used for the purpose of repair and maintenance of the plant and machinery. According to the assessee, the welding electrodes irrespective of their use were eligible for Cenvat credit either as capital goods or as inputs. It was a...

Bagpat Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order dated 25-4-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the Order-in-Original dated 28-9-2004, by which the adjudicating authority disallowed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 18,174/- and directed its recovery under Rule 12 of the Cervat Credit Rules, 2002, imposing penalty of the like amount under Rule 13(1) of the said Rules, and ordered interest to be charged.2. The appellant had availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 18.174/- on "shelling charges". The assessee had received shelled, machined and grooved sugar mill machinery parts from the job worker and had taken credit of duty paid by them on shelling, machining and grooving charges under Invoice No. 15 dated 21-5-2003.3. The Revenue alleged that the invoice did not contain any details of new spares used at the time of shelling, machining and grooving of the sugar mill machinery parts, but merely showed only "shelling, machining and grooving charges" and that no duty was borne by the job-worker on...

Telephone Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ15CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appeal is directed against the service tax demand. That demands has been made by treating the appellant as a management consultant in regard to income received. The income received were mentioned in the Balance Sheet as(1) Consultancy income Rs. 45 lakhs(2) Income from services rendered Rs. 1.42 crores 2. These were Balance Sheets for 1998-99, 1999-2000. During the Adjudication proceedings, the appellant stated that income was not received from services rendered to M/s. Innovative Textiles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in regard to certain exports of Textiles. It was the contention of the appellant that this was an agreement for collaboration in the export of fabrics and that there was no consultancy involved in both. The contention of the appellant was rejected and tax demand made. The appellant took up the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals); that appeal was also rejected. The present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner.3. We may first note the definition of ...

Smt. Babita Aggarwal W/O. Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The present application is filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 18.4.2003 (Annexure A-1) vide which her request for pay protection has been denied by the office of respondent No. 2. The same has been conveyed to applicant vide letter dated 16.5.2002 (Annexure A-1/A). On the basis of the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Birender Singh v. U.O.I. passed on 10.12.1996 (OA 1101/1996), the applicant made a request for pay protection. This case was sent to office of respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 4.1.2006 (Annexure A-2) stating that the benefits of the judgment in the case of Birender Singh is a specific one and not applicable to other similar cases. This decision was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 30.1.2006.Immediately thereupon, the applicant made a request for referring the case in the office of respondent No. 2 through letter dated 9.2.2006 and the case was sent vide letter dated 1.3.2006 by the office of respondent No. 4 in the of...

Miss Renu Vashist Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT32; 2007(95)DRJ190

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. Both these petitions are taken up for disposal and are being disposed of together as they raise common issues.2. The question that is raised in these petitions is when reserved category candidates qualify on merit in the open (general) category also, should they be placed against the quota for the reserved category or in the open (General) category 3. Various arguments were advanced by the counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondents. The following decisions of the Supreme Court were referred to:i) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217;ii) Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Ors. : [1996]2SCR695 ; andiii) Union of India and Anr. v. Satya Prakash and Ors. 2006 (2) SCT 500.4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that when candidates belonging to the reserved category qualify on merit, they ought to be placed in the open (general) category without exhausting one seat from the reserved category. ...

Narinder Singh Vs. Rekha @ Pushpa

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi118; 138(2007)DLT36; I(2007)DMC510; 2007(94)DRJ142

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment dated 7.4.1984, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the appellant/husband's petition, HMA. No. 274/83, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent/wife on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(I)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(`Act').2. The parties were married on February 12, 1980 in Agra according to Hindu religious rites and lived for 8 days thereafter in the first instance. They again lived together for a very brief while between April 21 and April 23 of 1980.3. In support of his plea that he had been treated cruelly by the respondent the Appellant husband cited three specific instances. The first was that the 'respondent's behavior was arrogant, irritating, insulting and nagging and she created scenes in the house and refused to serve even tea to the friends and visitors of the appellant'. The second was that on April 21, 1980 'the respondent quarrelled with ...