Delhi Court February 2007 Judgments

Alok Kumar Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4-6-2001 for the assessment year 1998-99, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred both in law and on fact in determining the alleged taxable interest of Rs. 2,41,000 on the basis of initial option price of Rs. 15,05,990 for two years is wrong and without any basis and is wholly irrelevant to determine the relevant issue. 2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) first time fixed the perquisite income of Rs. 2,41,000 being interest on stock option price and had not been confronted to assessee which is wrong and illegal and is contrary to the material available on records. 3. That in any case addition of taxable interest Rs. 2,41,000 as made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is illegal and highly arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) further erred in...

Smt. Neera Singh Vs. the State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 138(2007)DLT152; I(2007)DMC545

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned ASJ upheld the order of the Trial Court discharging appellants Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajendar Singh and Toshan Singh. Bishan Pal Singh is the father-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Santosh Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant and Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh are the brothers-in-law (husband's brothers) of the complainant. The complainant made allegations involving almost every member of the family of her in laws. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after going through the evidence observed as under:Perusal of record shows that the allegations of the complainant are against the accused person except the accused husband with respect of taunting for bringing insufficient dowry. But there is not a single allegation that the accused pers...

Penorama Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ542

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This present petition is preferred for recall of the summoning order dated 06.12.2001 of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, on a Complaint filed by the Respondent (hereafter 'the complainant') and quashing of criminal proceedings.2. The facts necessary to decide this petition are that the complainant M/s. Grasim Industries, instituted a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. The Petitioners approached the Complainant on 22.08.2001 for payment of rent of a plot to Haldia Dock Complex through handling agent M/s Lee & Muirhead Ltd. They issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 14, 50,000/-, for repayment of liability. 3. The complaint alleged that upon presentation the said cheque was dishonoured. The respondent alleged that it issued a notice and asked petitioner to make payment within 15 days, but the latter failed to do so. A complaint was filed against the petitioners before the Metropolitan Magistrate; they were issued with a s...

D.S. Nanda Vs. Delhi Control Devices Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(2007)BC495

A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The respondent herein had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against M/s. Creative Handicrafts (Electronic Division), Mr.D.S. Nanda, Mr.T.S. Bhatia and Mr.Subroto Roy. The complaint was, obviously, on the basis of a dishonoured cheque and was filed on 10.8.1990. Cheque in question was for a sum of Rs.7 lacs, which was dishonoured on 10.4.1990. Accused persons were summoned in this complaint. Thereafter, they approached the respondent (hereinafter called the 'Complainant') and wanted him to withdraw the said complaint. In this behalf, ultimately agreement dated 14.5.1991 was executed between the complainant and accused No. 1/petitioner herein, pursuant whereto the complainant withdrew the complaint. In this agreement, it was agreed that a sum of Rs.3,19,620/- in all shall be paid to the complainant. There were certain other terms and conditions. After the withdrawal of the complaint under...

Cit Vs. Devi Dass Malhan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]315ITR231(Delhi)

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 23-6-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in lTA No. 558/Delhi/2003 relevant for the block assessment period 1-4-1989 to 27-7-1999.2. The block assessment in respect of the assessed under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 31-8-2001. At that time, surcharge was not levied.3. Subsequently, by an order dated 7-1-2003, the assessing officer rectified the block assessment order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 154 of the Act and levied a surcharge. This was apparently done in view of the incorporation of a proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1-6-2002 by the Finance Act, 1999.4. The assessed was aggrieved by the imposition of surcharge and, thereforee, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). It was contended that the levy of surcharge can only be with effect from 1-6-2002 when the proviso to Section 113 of the Act was in...

Pushpak Courier Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)9STJ197CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the demand of Service Tax and penalties of the equal amount were imposed.2. The contention of the appellant is that due to illness of the father of the assessee of the proprietor, the Service Tax due for the period November 2003 to June 2004 was not paid and subsequently on 30.10.04 the same was paid along with interest even prior to show-cause notice.The contention is that Government floated Amnesty Scheme which was up to 30th October, 2004 which provides that service provider who was registered and paid service tax along with Interest with the Revenue got himself registered with the Revenue and deposited the Service Tax along with interest prior to 30.10.04 is not liable for any penalty.The contention is that as the appellant paid the amount of Service Tax along with interest prior to 30.10.04 they are not liable for any penalty.3. The contention of the Revenue is that it is not the case of the appellant that they...

Sbec Sugar Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC306

2. The challenge is to levy of service tax on the services rendered by the appellant treating those services as that of a clearing and forwarding agent.3. In adjudication it was held that the services rendered by the appellant would be in the nature of 'business ancillary services' which came to be taxed from 1.7.03, but the order held "that was only putting under most specific category and remain covered as clearing and forwarding agent services for the previous period." In the first appeal, the Commissioner without going into the finding of the original authority, held that the service rendered fell in the category of clearing and forwarding agent's service.4. The services rendered by the appellant as noted in the order are the following - (a) To liaison with various Sugar Mills in the state of UP to ensure prompt filling of Molasses tankers and to avoid delay and hold up of tankers at filling stations. (b) To ensure that molasses of right quality and allotted grade is loaded in tan...

ishwar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(3)SLJ299CAT

1. In this O.A. the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the respondents' order dated 15.2.2005 (Annexure A-l) insofar as it rejects his claim for protection of pay consequent upon his appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Railway Department. He has also sought a direction to the respondents to re-fix his pay w.e.f. 22.01.1993, Le.from the date of his appointment as Assistant Teacher, after protecting his pay of previous service rendered by him on the post of Permanent Way Mistry (PWM, for short), with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed in the year 1988 as PWM in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 in the Northern Railway, Moradabad Division. In the year 1991 the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, invited applications for the post of Assistant Teacher in Railway Schools in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040.The applicant applied for the post through proper channel after obtaini...

Yogesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Miss Anuradha Rangarajan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR446(Delhi); 139(2007)DLT71; 2007(95)DRJ581

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This arbitration application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) seeking appointment of an arbitrator to refer the petitioner's claim to arbitration.2. It is not in dispute that the parties were running a partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Kreative Ambience vide a partnership deed dated 30-10-97. This partnership deed contained an arbitration agreement in Clauses No. 16 and 17, whereunder disputes arising between the parties were mutually agreed to be referred to one arbitrator, agreeable to both the parties.3. It appears that disputes arose between the parties and the respondent initially issued a notice of dissolution on 27-03-2002 purporting to dissolve the partnership firm with effect from the said date. The respondent sought the settlement of accounts of the partnership firm and demanded payment of 50% share out of the proceeds and assets of the partnership firm. In para 12 of...

Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui and anr. Vs. the Vice Chancellor J.M.i. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT744

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioners, namely, Mohd. Tahir Siddiqui and Deepak Kumar Ambuj had applied for appointment to the post of lecturers in the Department of Fine Arts and Art Education pursuant to an advertisement issued by Jamia Millia Islamia University for filling up the said posts. The advertisement specified the following qualification:Qualification for post of Lecturer in : History of Art, Art Education (Painting), Fine Arts (Painting), Fine Arts (Method and Material): 4/5 years Degree/Diploma in an appropriate branch of Fine Arts after 10+2 AndMaster of Fine Arts (MFA) with first division in relevant branch of Fine Arts or Art EducationAndAt least two years of teaching at +2 level or college level.Admittedly, the petitioners did not possess one of the essential qualifications so prescribed i.e. 'At least two years of teaching at +2 level or college level'. Yet, they claim that they possessed the requisite qualification. According to them, they have qualified the National Ed...