Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Mewat Zinc Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)112ITD157(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-IX New Delhi for the AY 1997-98.2. The appellant is agitated on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the petition Under Section 154 and the mistake was apparent from record. Intimation Under Section 143(1) dated 16.3.1998 should have been revised as per the revised return Under Section 139(5) of the Act filed on 31.3.99 in view of Section 143(1B).3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed return of income within the time allowed Under Section 139(1) of the Act on 30.11.97 at an income of Rs. 1225560. Intimation Under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was issued on 16.3.98 wherein the income was accepted at Rs. 1225560 but demand of Rs. 660575 was created in absence of TDS certificates and challan for self-assessment tax. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice Under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24,11.98. The appellant filed revised return Under Section...

Bj Services Company Middle East Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)297ITR141(Delhi)

1. These appeals involve a common ground, namely, whether the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding tax perquisite grossing up on multiple stages and not on a single stage? The appeals were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. The learned Counsel pointed out that the facts of all the cases are identical and that is why these appeals are being argued in a consolidated manner. In view thereof, a common order is passed. For this purpose, we shall refer to the facts in the case of B.J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. (representative of Mr. Roger David Arnold).2. On perusal of the assessment order, it is found that BJ Services Co.Middle East Ltd. (hereinafter called the company) had filed the return of income on 30th Sept., 2004 as an agent of Mr. Roger David Arnold, the employee of the company, declaring total income of Rs. 8,41,434 and claiming refund of Rs. 31,383. The return was signed and...

ito Vs. Sylvania and Laxaman (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee (sic-Revenue) against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 1-12-2004 for the assessment year 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein following two grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to treat the royalty income as business income and allow the expenditure as claimed by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer clearly established in the assessment order that business was discontinued and as such the royalty income was to be treated as income from other sources. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the assessing officer to set off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation as per provisions of the Act by holding that there is no discontinuation of business.2. R...

Baldev Krishan Batra Vs. Vallabhai Patel Chest Institute and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT83

Kailash Gambhir, J. 1. The short issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Stenographer in the Department of Respiratory Virology with Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute, which is an institute under the administrative control of University of Delhi, could be considered for pensionary benefits on seeking voluntary retirement without completing the qualifying service of 20 years. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Steno- Typist with respondent No. 1 - institute with effect from 24.2.1969 and after completing successful probation period was confirmed vide confirmation letter dated 11.5.1971. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Stenographer with effect from 31.8.1973 after having cleared the shorthand test and interview. Respondent No. 1-Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute is stated to be governed by Statute 28-A issued by the University of Delhi...

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Pratap Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi0

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties the matter is set for final hearing.2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned award on the premise that the Labour Court has placed undue weightage on non-supply of some documents to the workman and non production of ticketless passengers during the course of the enquiry proceedings. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the charged employee who was a conductor at the relevant time had misconducted himself by indulging into an act of corruption in not issuing the tickets in as much as to 12 passengers and such serious misconduct should have weighed with the Labour Court while deciding the reference. Another contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry proceedings are not governed by strict rules of Evidence Act and it is only total lack of evidence but not sufficiency of evidence could be a ground for interference by the Labour Court in the findings of...

Shri Siddhartha Kumar, Dy. Manager, Trifed Vs. Tribal Co-operative Mar ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT119

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. Rule in this matter was issued on 11.3.2005.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.12.2001 passed by the respondent whereby the request of the petitioner to withdraw from his decision of seeking voluntary retirement was turned down. The conspectus of facts as germane to the controversy inter alias are that the respondent had introduced voluntary retirement scheme for the first time on 24.7.2000 and a complete scheme was brought out by the respondent vide circular dated 24.7.2000. Along with said circular the respondent had annexed the scheme which would govern voluntary retirement cases. The aforesaid scheme was initially for a period ending 31.12.2000. However, the same was extended vide another Circular dated 30.1.2001 up to 31st March, 2001 and vide another circular dated 13.6.2001, it was extended till 31.7.2001. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement vide application dated 28.6.2001 i.e. pursuant to the last circular dated 13.6.2001 under...

State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Fateh Chand and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT110

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12th February, 1996 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the charges under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. Food Inspector had collected sample of edible Catechu (katha) from the shop of the respondent. The sample was sent to Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The report of the Central Food Laboratory was as under:1. Physical appearance : Pale brown coloured product : Passes the test2. 5.0 ml of 1.0% aqueous solution & 0.1% solution of : Passes the testferric ammonium sulphate shall give a dark green colour, which on the addition of sodium hydroxide solution shall change to purple3. Moisture (dried to constant weight at 100 C = 16.3% by weight4. Water insoluble residue (dried at 100 C) = 0.96% by weight(determined by boiling water)5. Alcohol insoluble residue = 6.52% by weight6. Total ash (on dry weight basis) = 2.16%7. Ash insoluble in HC...

Dalmia Industries Limited Vs. Shri Jagmohan Gupta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT165

Anil Kumar, J.1. The applicant/defendant No. 1, Shri Jagmohan Gupta, has sought review of order dated 8th March, 2006 whereby defendant Nos. 2(ii) and 2(iii) who had died even prior to filing of the suit were deleted and there legal representatives were imp leaded under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure and the application of the Defendant No. 1 to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was filed against two dead persons, was dismissed.2. The order dated 8th March, 2006 was a composite order allowing is Nos. 6477/1993 (Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC), 7282/1994 (Under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC) and 7416/1994 (Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) filed by the plaintiff for impleading the Legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 2 (ii) and defendant No. 2(iii) as parties to the suit and dismissal of the is No. 10039/1994 (Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) filed by defendant No. 1 for rejection of plaint holding that the plain...

Krishan Kumar Dhanker Vs. Hydro Spares and Services and Others.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. Complainant purchased a machine (equipment) L and T 580-3, Loader Backhoe Hydraulic Excavator-cum-Loader Machine Sl. No. ULB-2644, Engine No. 48.1505/0100203, Chassis No. ULB-01J264 of O.P. No. 2 in the price of Rs. 14,15,000 through its authorised dealer, O.P. No. 1 on 4.12.2001. The bill of the machine dated 15.12.2001 was delivered by O.P. No. 2 to the complainant after three months, but form No. 21 (Sales Certificate) and form No. 22 (Initial Certificate of Road Worthiness) not given. O.P. No. 2 gave both the form Nos. 21 and 22 in April, 2002 to the complainant. 2. That O.P. No. 3 financed Rs. 9,75,000 at the interest rate of 9% p.a. out of Rs. 14,15,000 to the complainant in December, 2001. The receipt of the cash was not issued by O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 and they told that the above said money would be adjusted in bill. After receiving the full price of Rs. 14,15,000 of the machine by O.P. No. 2 he then delivered the machine to the complainant on 4.12.2001. ...

Goenka Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. Two lakhs. The present impugned order is passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal. In the earlier proceeding, penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed on the applicant and Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for hearing of the appeal and that amount is already with the Revenue.In these circumstances, the pre-deposit of remaining amount of penalty is waived. The stay petition is allowed as indicated above. The Registry is directed to list the appeal in the week starting from 16.4.2007....