Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Chander @ Chandu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ271

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi in Execution No. 865/2006.2. The learned Judge, while executing the decree, held that as per the decree, interest on the solatium payable as per the enhanced compensation and additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land, Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been granted, therefore petitioner would not be entitled to said 2 components of interest.3. The learned Judge has held that the Executing Court cannot modify the decree.4. Agricultural land of the petitioner was acquired. Being dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector he sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The said reference was registered as LAC No. 14/1997. It was disposed of vide order dated 3.2.2000. Relief granted was as under:8. Relief:--In view of my findings on issue No. 1 above, I fix the market value of the acquired...

Aruna V. Kumar and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ332

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.COM. CASE. 263/2003Under Section 29(2) DDA ACT1. The petitioner claims a quashing order in respect of a complaint filed by the Delhi Development Authority alleging commission of offence under Section 29 of the Delhi Development Act.2. The complaint of the DDA was that Ms. Aruna V. Kumar was using the premises being a residential flat for unauthorized/commercial purposes. The complaint alleged that the first petitioner Aruna V. Kumar and her daughter (second petitioner) were partners of M/s Aruna V. Kumar & Co. and were carrying on business/ commercial activities which was impermissible.3. Despite issuance of notice, on the respondents, there has been no appearance in these proceedings by the DDA. Learned Counsel relied upon the order of this Court in CW 3425/2003 dated 22.10.03 to say that residents of the locality concerned had filed writ petition levelling allegation that the petitioners were misusing the premises, i. e. B-7, second floor, 12 Shyam Nath Complex, C...

K.S. Oils Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC359

1. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of Vanaspati falling under Heading 15.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. During the month of March and April 2002, the appellant received the capital goods namely, Refrigeration Panel and Electrical items Electrodes, automatic machine and Electrical panel which were installed and used in the production of the final products by 26.4.02. The appellant was clearing the finished goods at nil rate of duty till 28.2.03. Since 1.3.03, a duty of 8% ad valoram was imposed on the final products vide Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 1.3.03. Since imposition of duty, the appellant had opted for exemption under Notification no. 8/02-CE dated 1.3.02 and after crossing the clearance value of Rs. 100 lakhs, they had started paying duty on final product with Cenvat facility. They availed Cenvat credit on the aforesaid capital goods in the month of March and April, 2003, which were installed and utilised i...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Uniflex Industries (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(119)ECC388

1. The revenue has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 28.2.05, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed on 4.2.99, by which he had rejected the refund claim of the respondents for a sum of Rs. 46,800.73p.2. The Respondent was using the intermediate product known as lay flat tubing for captive consumption in the manufacture of poly bags, which were cleared at 'nil' rate under Notification No. 4/97 dated 1.3.97.The respondent was not availing exemption on lay flat tubing under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.95 for its captive consumption.Lay flat tubing were exempted from excise duty by Notification No.5/98-CE dated 2.6.98, which was not applicable to poly bags manufactured by a unit availing modvat on any products and as such poly bags became liable for payment of duty. The appellant had paid excise duty on the lay flat tubing from 2.6.98 to 13.6.98. However, in view of the exemption under Notification dated 2.6.98, a refund claim for R...

Sumant Kumar Tyagi S/O Late Shri Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant, an ex-Clerk, has impugned respondents' order dated 17.8.1984, whereby in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings a major penalty of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon him. Also assailed is an order passed on 10.1.2000, whereby the request of applicant for grant of retiral benefits has been turned down.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that applicant, who was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 27.5.1964, was granted quasi-permanency on 27.5.1968. Due to some indifferences and bias of one officer, namely, Shri Surinder Singh applicant was transferred to Madras, which he had responded to by annexing his certificate of illness as well as of his wife due to Tuberculosis of ovary. However, non-joining of applicant resulted in a memorandum dated 15.11.1980 issued to him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, whereby he has been alleged to have infringed the provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1972 by remaining una...

Shri Gopal Krishan, Section Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant challenges Memorandum dated 22nd March, 2005, rejecting his representations dated 28.07.2004 and 01.10.2004 seeking stepping up of his pay to the level of his junior i.e. Mrs. Neera Narula. Direction is also sought to grant said stepping up w.e.f. 22.03.1994 with all consequential benefits like arrears etc.2. Facts as stated are that he was appointed as LDC in the year 1971 and promoted to UDC in August, 1980. His name appeared in the select list of Assistant in the Department of Personnel & Training w.e.f.01.01.1990. In the meantime, he was selected for post of Accountant in pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- on deputation in Department of Personnel and Training/Staff Section Commission in March, 1989. Subsequently, he applied for absorption as Accountant in the said borrowing department.Initially his request for absorption was taken up, but later he was reverted back as Assistant and his pay was fixed at Rs. 1640/- in the initial scale of Assistant w.e.f. 22.03.1994, thoug...

Dimsy Food and Chemicals (P) Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income T ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)450

1. These are three appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(A) dt. 20th April, 2005 and 15th April, 2005 for the block assessment years 1st April, 1990 to 14th Feb., 2001, in the matter of orders passed under Section 158BD of the IT Act, 1961, wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the addition made on account of purchase of land at Village Chawla. The transaction relating to the purchase of property having been disclosed in regular IT return filed by the assessee. The same could not be considered for block assessment. The addition of Rs. 45,43,233 (addition made by the AO) deserves to be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in observing 'if as a result of search or on the basis of material information made available after the search it is found that the fact or the inferences shown in ...

Hotel Hans (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT (Appeals) dated 25-2-2005 for the assessment year 2001-02, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein following grounds of appeal have been raised : 1. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the business of hotel Hans Coco Palms, (Sun N Beach) at Puri recommenced on 25-12-2000 on wholly erroneous, illegal and untenable grounds. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the business had commenced on 16th September, 2000 and as such, only the expenses for the period up to 15-9-2000 amounting to Rs. 5,20,472 should have been treated as capital expenditure. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the strenuous contention of the assessee that the assessing officer having treated the receipts from operation of hotel Sun N...

Ram Saroop Saini (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. We find it convenient to dispose of this bunch of ten cross-appeals by the assessees and the revenue pertaining to respective assessment years as shown in the caption of the order, by this consolidated order.2. The assessees before us are three HUFs, the Kartas whereof are brothers. The assessments have been framed by treating the sale of land declared by the assessees as adventure in the nature of trade and not as sale of capital asset declared by the assessee. The quantum of income assessed is also in dispute.3. The background, facts and the dispute leading to the present controversy are identical in respect of all the appeals of three assessees herein. We therefore, consider it appropriate to take up for consideration the controversy in relation to I.T.A. No. 1409/Delhi/05 pertaining to Ram Saroop Saini, HUF. The return of income was filed declaring income of Rs. 2,36,790 plus agricultural income of Rs. 55,400 for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessing officer noticed that t...

Mmtc Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)15

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi dt. 24th Jan., 2000 for asst. yr. 1993-94, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3)/147 of the IT Act. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant incurred expenses to the extent of Rs. 30,36,752 towards earning dividend of Rs. 6.57 crores from the Units 64 of Unit Trust of India. Whereas the assessee submitted that the flow of dividend from units is automatic after the investment and no expenses were incurred. (1)(a) Without prejudice to the above ground and in the alternative the appellant prays that the expense of Rs. 30,36,752 as determined by the learned CIT(A) is highly excessive. (2) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in arriving at a sum of Rs. 7.39 crores being the interest expenses for working out the indirect cost under Section 80HHC against the net debit in the P&L a/c of Rs. 4.5...