Delhi Court May 2007 Judgments

Anu Mohela Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)SLJ40(Delhi)

Rekha Sharma, J.1. On July 23, 2004, National Council for Promotion or Urdu Language (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') advertised one post of Junior Stenographer carrying the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000. Pursuant thereto, the respondent undertook the selection process which included holding of a written test, skill test and interview. A panel of two candidates was prepared, one of whom, Ijju Sumant was placed at No. 1 while the other Anu Mohela (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') at No. 2. Consequent to the selection, Ijju Sumant joined the service on February 4, 2005. However, three months thereafter on May 16, 2005, he resigned. Upon his resignation, on June 23,2005, the respondent set an e-mail message to the petitioner requesting her to visit its office on June 24, 2005. As desired, she went to the office and upon her visit she was asked to join as Junior Stenographer (English) with effect from June 29, 2005 which she did and continued to work till November...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mangalam Cement Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)7STR673

1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order made by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he set aside the orders-in-original confirming service tax demand in one case (Service Tax Appeal No. 2/23 of 2005) of Rs. 60,26,508/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, imposing penalty of Rs. 48,700/- under Section 76 and ordering interest amount of Rs. 8,84,287/- under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, and in the other case (Service Tax Appeal No.224 of 2005) confirming service tax of Rs. 24,23,911/- under Section 73(2) of the Finance said Act, imposing penalty of Rs. 48,700/- under Section 76 of the Act and ordering payment of interest of Rs. 3,83,608/- under Section 75 of the Act.2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cement and were having registration for the purpose of service tax. The respondents received goods transport operators' services during the period 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. According to the Revenue, since the respondents were l...

Mewar Industries Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Delhi)698

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 13th July, 2005 of the learned CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi. The grounds of appeal are reproduced below: 1. That the learned CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,36,507 by AO. 2. It is contended that the assessee was under bona Me belief that requisite approval of CBDT will be received in due course for claiming the exemption under Section 10(23G) of the IT Act, that a belief constituted reasonable cause. The matter of approval from CBDT is still pending and it is in process of approval with Central Government.2. The assessee filed written submissions which are placed on record.The learned Counsel further submitted that the AO did not record satisfaction in the assessment order under Section 143(3) before initiation of penalty proceedings and the order under Section 271(1)(c) dt. 24th March, 2005 and the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the same are not maintainab...

Drf Satvir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(96)DRJ444

ORDERT.S. Thakur, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether the respondents could have cancelled the result of a promotion examination in which the petitioner had appeared and was declared successful year and a half after such declaration. The cancellation, it is common ground, was not on account of any inherent ineligibility suffered by the petitioner but on account of his failure to seek prior permission of the Commanding Officer of his Unit to write the examination. The respondents argue that any Non Commissioned Officer like the petitioner eligible for appearing in the promotion examination was required to take prior permission of the Commanding Officer concerned before he actually appeared in such examination. This permission was not in the case of the petitioner obtained before he was permitted to appear in the examination by the competent authority in the Automotive Regiment, Ahmednagar where he was sent on Extra Regimental Employment. Nea...

Dr. Sarita Sarangi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(3)SLJ445(Delhi)

Hima Kohli, J.1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has impugned her termination order dated 7th May, 2001 and has sought directions to the respondents to reinstate her back into service and to treat the period of her service from the date of the termination to the date of her reinstatement, as period spent on duty and that all service dues and other service benefits be released to her, as per her entitlement.2. To begin with, facts leading to the filing of the present petition need to be culled out. An advertisement was published by the respondent No. 2, the Rehabilitation Council of India in the Employment News dated 20-26th March, 1999, inviting applications for the post of Deputy Director (Technical/Programm Officer). The petitioner applied for the post and appeared for an interview on 14th May, 1999. Vide letter dated 22nd June, 1999, the petitioner was appointed to the said post on a temporary basis on probation for a period of two years. According to the respondent N...

Jaipal Vidyalankar and ors. Vs. D.D.A. and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT262; 2007(96)DRJ385

ORDERS. Muralidhar, J.Introduction1. These writ petitions are by residents of village Nangal Devat who have been found eligible for allotment of alternate plots of land in Village Rangpuri in lieu of the abadi lands acquired in Nangal Devat for the purposes of expansion of the international airport at Delhi. The Petitioners approached this Court when letters dated 11.1.2007 and 19.1.2007 were issued by the Delhi Development Authority (`DDA') allotting the plots in Rangpuri subject to certain conditions. The principal grievance of the Petitioners was that the time indicated in the letters for handing over possession, i.e., 31.1.2007 was too short. It was further stated that the site where the alternate plots were located, was not developed and lacked basic infrastructure. Thirdly, the conditionalties attached to the letters were onerous and prejudicial to the Petitioners.2. The scheme for rehabilitation of land-holders in village Nangal Devat whose lands were acquired for expansion of i...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Global Capital Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]306ITR332(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. Admit.2. In the present appeal, the Revenue has raised two issues for our consideration. The first issue is as to whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'the Tribunal') rightly allowed deduction of Rs. 10,92,750 to the assessee on account of bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'the Act').3. The second issue is as to whether the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deduction of remuneration of Rs. 4,52,833 paid by the assessee to Shri Neeraj Kanwar despite the fact that the assessee had not established rendering of services by Shri Neeraj Kanwar for the purposes of business of the assessee-company.4. The assessee in the present case filed a return declaring an income at Rs. 4,77,330 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 9,64,840. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed bad debts amounting to Rs. 10,92,750. The assessee was required by the Assessing Off...

Mark Exhaust Systems Ltd. Vs. Cst

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)11STJ165CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. The learned authorised representative for the applicant states that, the entire tax amount has already been paid up. It appears from the record that, adequate reasons are not given for imposing penalties.Moreover, penalties have been imposed both under Section 76, which does not require mens rea and also under Section 78, which requires mens rea for the same lapse. We, therefore, direct that the amount of tax deposited by the applicant will be treated as pre-deposit for hearing the appeal and there shall be waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty amounts. Interim stay is granted in the above terms. The application stands disposed of accordingly....

Shri Rajpal Singh S/O Shri Hukmi Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By present OA, applicant seeks direction to consider him for the post of JE-II in grade Rs. 5000-8000/- at par with his junior such as Respondent No. 3 with all consequential benefits, including costs etc.2. Facts as stated are that applicant was initially appointed as Casual Khalasi on 30.08.1972, became a regular Group 'D' employee on 20.06.1974 and was posted at Panipat. In 1978 he was further promoted as Assistant 'PED' in pay scale of Rs. 210-260/- after qualifying trade test. In 1980, after qualifying trade test, he was further promoted as PED-III in grade of Rs. 260-400/-, PED-II in 1984 in grade of Rs. 330-480/- and PED-I grade Rs. 480-560/- on 1.10.1986. He was placed in the panel issued vide communication dated nil 4/86 at serial No. 47 and Shri Atar Singh (Respondent No. 3) at serial No. 49. He as well as Respondent No. 3 were promoted and posted against existing vacancies vide notice dated 08.08.1986 and placed at serial Nos. 33 and 35 respectively. The scale of Rs. 480...

Nokia Corporation Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)627

1. Both the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of CIT(A) dt. 30th Dec., 2005 for the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99, in the matter of orders passed under Sections 154/254/143(3) and 250 of the IT Act, 1961 wherein Mowing grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. The learned CIT(A)-XXIX ('CIT(A)') on facts of the case and in law, erred in upholding assumption of jurisdiction under Section 154 of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act') by the learned AO. 2. The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law, in upholding inclusion of Rs. 5 crores as income from vendor financing in the order passed under Section 154 of the Act, in respect of appeal effect order dt. 28th July, 2005. 3. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A) under Section 154 of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio. 4. The CIT(A) erred on facts and in law, in not directing the AO to adjust the sum of Rs. 3 crores (deposited by the appellant on 5th Sept., 2003 through a common challan issued b...