Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

Durga Devi W/O Late Ramesh Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought direction to the respondents to take her back in service.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant's husband was appointed by the respondents as ECR Operator (Salesman GDE-II) w.e.f.15.07.1995. The applicant's husband met with an accident and expired on 20.12.2003. Thereupon, the applicant made a request for her appointment and she was accordingly issued appointment order dated 16.06.2004 as Goods Checker for a period of one year. However, the services of the applicant were terminated in May, 2006 without any notice. Hence the O.A.3. When this OA came up for admission, Shri G.C. Nagar, learned Counsel for the applicant, argued that the dismissal of the applicant is mala fide for the reason that she was dismissed because she dared to approach Brig. H.P.S. Dhillon, Dy GOC, Delhi Area in the G.O.C. (Maj.Gen. Oberoi) meeting known as Darbar to rquest for regularization of her services. The applicant thereafter submitted several representa...

Ansal Properties and Industries Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)301ITR285(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, dated 18.6.2004.2. The appellant is an experienced and reputed developer engaged in the business of construction of multi storied buildings, commercial as well as residential etc 3. The first ground of appeal is against the denial of deduction of Rs. 7,29,656/- on account of write-off of 10% of share issue expenses incurred during the assessment year 1993-94. At the time of hearing this ground was not pressed. For want of prosecution, this ground is dismissed 4. The next ground of appeal is against treatment of a sum of Rs. 4.25 crores received as compensation from Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd. pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into between the assessee herein and DCM Ltd. and Kailashnath Associates. It is the claim of the assessee that the sum of Rs. 4 25 crores is capital receipt not chargeable to tax whereas the Assessing Officer has held...

Harinder Singh and ors. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ370

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present criminal revision petition challenges the order on charge dated 18.9.2006 by the Learned ASJ. Charges were framed under Section 302/34, 406/ 304B/ 498A/ 34 of the Indian Penal code. (IPC) against the accused, including the Petitioners here.2. The brief facts necessary to decide this present petition are as follows: One Sh. Bhupinder Singh (hereafter 'the Husband') and Smt. Sashi(hereafter the deceased) were married on 24.5.2002 and a son was later born out of the wedlock. The husband was posted with the Delhi Police in its Security Department. The couple were residing in their official accommodation at Police lines, Narela along with their son and the husband's younger brother Vijay.3. The Petitioner is an uncle of the husband. The deceased died an unnatural death on 29.4.2005 in the matrimonial home and the post mortem report opined the death could be homicidal in nature. The husband was thereafter arrested and since then he is in custody. 4. After t...

R.K. Bhandari Vs. Satish Jassal (Through His Legal Representatives/Hei ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR513(Delhi); (2008)3CompLJ310(Del)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award passed by the learned arbitrator on 27th January, 2007 in arbitration proceedings between the parties.2. Sh. Satish Jassal, the original claimant (since deceased) who is represented by his legal representatives, entered into an agreement with the petitioner and his sister on 20th March, 1996. Under this agreement, the claimant, Mr. Satish Jassal, agreed to renovate the existing first floor and raise further construction on the first floor of property bearing No. 5/12, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi for the petitioner herein. After having renovated the existing construction and raising further construction in terms of the agreement, the said Sh. Satish Jassal was to raise his own construction on the second floor, the rights whereof were acquired by him from the petitioner, Sh. R.K. Bhandari and his sister.3. The fact that the parties had entered into suc...

N. Bhojaraja Shetty Vs. C.B.i.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4513

ORDERS. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present revision petition is preferred against the orders of the Special Judge, charging the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 120-B, I.P.C. read with Section 420/467/468/471 and Section 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The brief facts necessary to decide this present petition are that M/s. R. K. Bhandari (Homeopath) Private Limited was maintaining a current account with Vijaya Bank, R.K. Puram. Later on the name of the said company was changed to M/s. R.K.B. Herbals Private Limited (accused No. 5, hereafter 'A-5'). The case of the prosecution is that while opening this account, M/s. Vijaya Bank, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, enquired with Indian Overseas Bank, Daryaganj, Delhi which, by letter dated 13-3-1982 informed the former that there was no objection if current account of the said company was opened by them provided no credit facilities we...

Cce Vs. Punjab Wool Comber Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC66

1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated 16.06.2005 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting-aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under the order-in-original and holding that no interest was chargeable as was held by the adjudicating authority.2. The respondent, Punjab Wool Combers Ltd., was availing modvat credit facility on inputs as well as capital goods. It was noticed during the course of visit by the Excise Staff on 10.02.2000, that the assessee had sold one dyeing machine to original noticee No. 2, i.e, Malwa Cotton & Spg. Mills, under invoice no. 143 dated 31.03.1999. Earlier, by entry dated 01.05.1995, modvat credit was taken of an amount of Rs. 5,97,478/- on the said dyeing machine by the respondent. The dyeing machine was cleared without giving any intimation as required by Rule 57-S(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without payment of duty.The said dyeing machine was a used one and was removed as such and, therefore, according to...

Commissioner of S. Tax Vs. Stic Travels Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)8STR495

2. Heard Id. DR. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice.3. The Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby credit in respect of the Service Tax paid on mobile phones were allowed to the respondent who is providing output service i.e. travel agency.The only contention of the Revenue is that the Cenvat credit is not available in respect of the Service Tax paid on the mobile phones and relied upon the Board's Circular No. 59/8/2003, dated 20-6-2003 which restricts the credit of Service Tax in respect of it telephone connection which is installed at the premises of output service provided.4. I find that as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules applicable during the period in dispute, input service means any service used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service. It is admitted fact that the mobile phone connections are in the name of the company i.e. respondent. The Revenue is not disputing the fact that the mobile phones...

Deepak Singh Negi and ors. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(97)DRJ355

H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. These two appeals bearing No. Crl. A. 539/2002 and Crl.A.566/2004 are directed against the impugned judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 17th May, 2002 holding all the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and then sentencing them vide order dated 22nd May, 2002 to life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs. 5,000/- on each of the appellants and in default in paying the fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. Feeling aggrieved, by the Judgment these three appellants,namely, Deepak Singh Negi @ Gautam, Mohd. Kamran @ Shekhu Khan and Ganesh Jhana have filed one composite appeal whereas Sandeep @ Saleem has filed separate appeal.3. Since both the appeals have arisen from one judgment, thereforee, these two appeals are being disposed of together.4. Facts as set out in the police report sent under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as also incorporated in the impugned judgment by Addit...

Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds) Vs. General Engineering Works

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]311ITR208(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The common question involved in both the appeals is as to whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal') was right in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 272A(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act').2. These two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the common order dated 4th September, 2006 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4417 and 4418/Del/2004 for the Assessment Year 2000-01 whereby the ITAT deleted the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was a reasonable cause with the assessed for failure to issue the TDS certificates within the stipulated time.3. The assessed has filed TDS return and it was noticed by the Income Tax Officer that the assessed had not issued TDS certificate within the prescribed time. Since there was delay, the matter was referred to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for penalty.4. Show cause notice under Section 272A(2)(g) read with Section 274...

Bharti Televentures Vs. C.S.T.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)12STJ206CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Heard both sides and perused the record. Appellant's explanation on the issue of limitation is accepted.2. The appellant was rendering the service of "Liasoning & Representation" to its clients. Payment was for performing that service.3. Under the impugned order, it has been held that the service was in the nature of Management Consultancy Service", which attracted service tax. On perusal of the record and hearing both sides, we are of the view that prima-facie, demand is not sustainable since "Liasoning & Representation" are not consultancy services, let alone, Management Consultancy Service. Stay application is allowed....