Delhi Court August 2007 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balaji Wire Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Del)35; [2008]304ITR393(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 31st January, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in respect of a batch of appeals filed by a group of assessed called the Bansal Group.2. Search and seizure operations under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) were conducted on 11th September, 2001 at various residential and business premises of a group of assessed, including the assessed before us, collectively called the Bansal Group. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the assessed under Section 158BC of the Act. The Assessing Officer made huge additions and these additions were, by and large, confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT (A) and that is why the Revenue is before us. Since the facts of all the cases are more or less similar, they were dealt with by the Tribunal by one order and we do the same.3. Two issues have been canvas...

Dr. Lal Chand Thakur S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant, while seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders dated 27.01.2003 (Annexure A-1) and 03.09.2004 (Annexure A-2) to the extent they grant him promotion on notional basis, has sought a direction to the respondents to pay him arrears of pay and allowances, on actual basis, for the post of Professor Neurology w.e.f. 07.12.1989 to 26.04.1994 and, similarly, arrears of pay and allowances for the post of Director Professor from 26.04.1999 to 03.09.2004, with all consequential benefits.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Associate Professor w.e.f. 20.11.84 as direct recruit. One vacancy of Professor of Neurology of the year 1985 was converted from Direct Recruitment Quota to Promotion quota, as no suitable candidates were found by the UPSC, in spite of two attempts. A DPC meeting was held on 30.06.1989, in which the applicant and Dr. (Mrs.) Meena Gupta were considered. The DPC recommended Dr. Meena Gupta for pr...

Dr. Sulekha Chakraborty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ324CAT

1. Through this O.A., following reliefs have been prayed for by the applicant: (a) A direction to the respondent No. 5 to forthwith send the recommendation of the name of the applicant to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as eligible non SCS Officer of State Government Assam having outstanding merit and ability and age for selection to IAS for the year 2006. (b) A direction to the Respondent to forthwith convene the Selection Committee Meeting, make a selection and prepare the select list for appointment by selection to the 2(two) vacancies so determined by the Central Government for the year 2006 in the Indian Administrative Service, Assam-Meghalaya Joint Cadre from non-State Civil Service, Assam. (c) A direction to the respondents not to club together the 2(two) vacancies of Indian Administrative Service, Assam-Meghalaya Joint that arose for calender year 2006 with any vacancy that may arise for the calender year 2007 and in near future and consider the said 2 (two) posts separately for the y...

Dr. Nishant Singh, Sub Inspector Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a Sub Inspector in the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, is aggrieved by act of respondents in not issuing an experience certificate vide orders dated 23.1.2007 and 6.3.2007 to enable him to participate in selection of the post of Assistant Director (scale Rs. 8550-14400) advertised by the Public Service Commission, Lucknow.2. The case of the applicant is that as he belongs to SC category and highly qualified, with degrees of M.Sc., M. Phil and Ph.D. He contends that he must be allowed to further his career as he decides. A refusal by respondents for issuance of an experience certificate to enable him to apply for a PSC advertised post is an arbitrary decision. The applicant has claimed that he has approached the Tribunal after exhausting all available remedies. He had made several representations to the Director as well as to the Joint Secretary (CS), but to no avail.3. Further, the plea of respondents that many employees of NCRB ar...

Karam Vir Singh S/O Shri Randhir Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of Memo dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure A-1) and the supporting Note dated 20/28.11.2006 (Annexure A-1-a) whereby the request of the applicant for fixation of his pay on notional basis at par with his junior has been rejected.2. This is the second round of litigation. The brief facts of the case are that, in 1997, the respondents had invited applications for filling up of the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT, for short) and Language Teachers. One of the eligibility conditions prescribed was that the candidate for the post of TGT should have a Bachelor's Degree (Hons./Pass) or equivalent from a recognized University in two subjects, of which at least one, out of English, Maths, Natural/Physical Science and Social Science, should have been an elective subject. The applicant was a Graduate of Osmania University, Hyderabad as an external candidate. The respondents did not consider the applicant eligible for the post of TG...

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lurgi India Co. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)114ITD1(Delhi)

1. Both these appeals of the revenue raise common grounds. The appeals were argued in a consolidated manner by the learned DR and the learned Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, we find it convenient to pass a consolidated order.2. Ground No. 1 is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the receipt of Rs. 13.00 crore by the assessee as a non-refundable grant from its parent company was a capital receipt, whereas the receipt was actually revenue in nature as the payment was made to compensate the assessee for trading loss 3. In this connection, the learned DR took us through the assessment order. It was pointed out that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 13.00 crore from its parent company M/s Lurgi A.G., which was credited to profit & loss account by way of a capital grant. However, in the computation, this amount was reduced from the income, and a note was also appended to the return stating inter-alia that in the relevant...

Smt. Zubi Kochar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Delhi)297

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT, Delhi-XI, New Delhi, dt. 31st March, 2005 passed under Section 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that a return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 30th March, 2002 declaring a total income of Rs." 2,13,35,044. In the assessment completed under Section 143(3) vide an order dt. 27th March, 2003, the income of the assessee, however, was assessed by the AG at Rs. 2,19,42,040 after making certain disallowances out of various expenses aggregating to Rs. 6,06,993. The record of the said assessment was subsequently came to be examined by the learned CIT and on such examination, he arrived at a prima facie conclusion that there were certain errors committed by the AO in completing the said assessment which were prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, issued a notice under Section 263 to the assessee on 27th Jan., 2004 enumerating suc...

Renaissance Distilleries and Vs. the Government of Nct of Delhi and or ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(2)CTLJ270(Del); 2007(121)ECC292; 2007LC292(Delhi)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the acceptance letter dated 23rd February 2007 issued by respondent No. 1 i.e. the Government of NCT of Delhi to the private respondent No. 3 to 7 whereby the said respondents have been granted the L-9/CLW-1 License for the wholesale supply of Country Liquor in the National Capital Territory of Delhi for the Licensing Year 2007-2008. The petitioner has further sought a mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to accept the petitioner's offer dated 5th February 2007 for grant of L-9/CLW-1 license for the said Licensing year.2. In January 2007, Government of NCT of Delhi invited tenders for grant of L-9/CLW-1 licenses for wholesale supply of Country Liquor for the licensing year 2007-08. The notice inviting tender issued by the Commercial-cum-Special Secretary of Excise enumerated the documents which were to accompany the ten...

The Coca Cola Company and anr. Vs. Dwarkadhish Khandelwal Trading as M ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007BusLR127(Del); LC2007(3)188

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction and damages for infringement of their trademark FANTA on account of a deceptively similar trademark FACTA, which is being used by the defendant in identical scheme.2. The plaintiff No. 1 claims to be a world renowned company and proprietor of various trademarks including, COCA COLA, COKE, THUMS UP, FANTA, etc. The trademark FANTA is stated to be adopted since 1941 and the turnover runs into millions of dollars, the details of which have been set out in the plaint. The trademark FANTA is also registered under different classes as stated in paragraph 12 of the plaint.3. The plaintiffs came across a general advertisement of the defendant's trademark FACTA on 18.11.2003, which was deceptively and confusingly similar to the trademark of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 filed a notice of opposition before the Registrar of Trade Marks.4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the adoption of the trademark FACTA by the defe...

Kuldeep Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR392]; 2008(2)SLJ254(Delhi)

S.L. Bhayana, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for setting aside the orders dated 13.05.1992 and 26.05.1995, issued by the Respondents, whereby the Petitioner was removed from service on the grounds of grave misconduct, indiscipline and carelessness.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 19.05.1989 in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISF') in the Sports Quota. The Petitioner submitted that on 20.09.1991 he had applied for two days Earned Leave and 20 days Half Pay Leave from 03.10.1991 to 24.10.91 on the ground that his wife was in a family way. The said leave was sanctioned by the Company Commander but later on refused by the higher authorities. The question was that the leave during this period was unauthorized as the higher authorities did not grant the sanction. On 06.11.1991 Petitioner's wife delivered a male child in th...