Delhi Court January 2008 Judgments

Mahamood Alam Vs. B.S.E.S. Power Rajdhani Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 6.12.2007, the District Forum, declined to give interim relief to the appellant for restraining the respondent from disconnecting the electricity on the premise that the allegations make prima facie a case of theft of electricity. 2. In our view such a conclusion could not have been drawn by the District Forum at the stage of admission of the complaint without calling for the reply of the respondent against the allegations of the appellant. 3. In the result the appeal is allowed at the outset, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the District Forum with the direction to decide the interim application after calling reply of the respondent on the application as well as on merit of the complaint. 4. The appellant shall appear before District Forum on 28.2.2008 for the aforesaid purpose. 5. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concer...

Lohia Starlinger Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR483

1. This appeal came up for hearing on the point of stay. The appellant has been asked to pay service tax of Rs. 25,10,324/- and equal amount of penalty under Section 78, besides penalties of Rs. 200/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- under Section 76, Section 75A and Section 76 respectively. The appellant seeks waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine and machinery parts for woven Sacks Industry. The goods manufactured and cleared are sold for home consumption by others in India and also exported to buyers abroad. The dispute herein relates to the commission paid to the appellant as commission agents for sales abroad. The moot point for consideration is whether as a recipient the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period in question i.e. 9.7.2004 to 30.0.2005. The case of the appellant is that prior to the enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, there was no such liability to pay...

Shri S. Manoj Kumar, Senior Vs. the Comptroller and Auditor

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. As the issue raised in these OA is founded on common facts and identical question of law, the same are disposed of by common order.3. Holders of different posts in the field offices of CAG, by virtue of this OA, have challenged respondents' order dated 19.1.2007 whereby in pursuance of a speaking order passed in compliance of an order passed by Tribunal in P.V. Laxmi v. Comptroller of Accounts General of India and Anr. (OA-997/2006 with OA 1029/2006), deputation (duty) allowance has been allowed to the incumbents of field offices from the date of the issue of the order but it has been allowed to the applicants therein in OA Nos. 997 and 1029 of 2006 from 2001. Applicants have also challenged respondents' policy decision whereby in purported compliance of order dated 6.10.2006 in OA 997/2006 with OA No. 1029/2006, though the incumbents of field offices, who have been given special allowances earlier, on grant of deputation (duty) allowance, this special allowance has been discontinu...

Dcit, Spl. Range-i Vs. Jindal Photo Films Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. As there is a difference of opinion, the matter is being referred to the Hon'ble President of the I.T.A.T with a request that the following question may be referred to a Third Member or pass such order as the Hon'bie President may kindiy decide: Whether on me facts and circumstances of the case, the product (photographic apparatus and goods) being manufactured by the assessee did not come under 11th Scheduie of the Act and therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction Under/Section 801/801A of the Act.1. The appeal has been directed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 28.11.97 pertaining to assessment year 94-95.In the sole ground, the revenue has challenged the direction of the CIT(A) to allow deduction Under Section 80-1 of the Act despite the fact that the product being manufactured by the assessee came under the XI^th Schedule of the Act.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the production and manufacture of photo co...

National Agricultural Vs. J.C.i.T. S.R. and Acit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)304ITR303(Delhi)

1. All these three appeals are by the assessee. ITA 1915/Del/2002 is an appeal by the assessee against the Order dt. 28.3.2002 of CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi relating to the A.Y. 1996-97. ITA 1916/Del/2002 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 28.3.2002 of CIT(A)-26, New Delhi relating to A.Y. 1997-98. ITA 2876/Del/03 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dt. 31.3.2003 of CIT(A)-26, New Delhi relating to the A.Y. 1998-99.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 in all the three appeals relate to the claim of deduction Under Section 80 P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. These grounds were not pressed by the ld. counsel for the assessee and consequently the same are dismissed as not pressed.3. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 in ITA 1915/Del/02 and 1916/Del/02 and ground Nos. 6 to 9 in ITA 2876/Del/03 is with regard to the claim for deduction Under Section 80 HHC of the Act. At the time of hearing these grounds were not pressed by the ld. counsel by the assessee and consequently these grounds are dismissed as n...

Jai UshIn Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)330

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner -III, New Delhi dated 24th Aug., 2006.2. In ground No. 1, the assessee has challenged the action of the learned CITtA) in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making adjustment of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation for assessment year 1999-2000 against income from house property and in not allowing the same to be carried forward to the subsequent years.3. The assessee in this case is a public limited company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of auto components. A return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 27-11- 2003 declaring a total income of Rs. 22,03,740. In the computation of total income filed along with the said return, income from business and income from house property was shown at Rs. 1,41,43,875 and Rs. 22,03,740 respectively and after adjusting carried forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessme...

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Cit-i

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order-dated 29.3.2005 of CIT-I, New Delhi for the Assessment year 2000-01. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the only effective issue is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT was justified in setting aside the assessment made by the A.O., Under Section 263.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee which was originally set up for warehousing activities diversified its activities in 1984 and started new lines of business of running of container freight station (CFS) and inland container depot (ICD). During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee had treated the entire income arising from all the activities as exempt under Section 10(29) though under the provisions of said section, only the income derived from letting of godowns or warehousing for storage, processing or facilitating marketing of agricultural products, seeds, manure, fertilizer, agricu...

Ex. Ln Vishav Priya Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 147(2008)DLT202

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. This batch of Writ Petitions raises two common questions of law pertaining to the Summary Court Martials (SCMs hereafter) of general importance - (a) whether an SCM can be convened, constituted and completed by the Commanding Officer (CO for short) of a Unit to which the accused did not belong and (b) circumstances in which an SCM can be convened rather than a General Courts Martial (GCM) or District Courts Martial (DCM) or Summary General Courts Martial (SGCM) as envisaged in Section 108 of the Army Act, 1950 (Army Act for short).2. In CWP 2511/1992 the Petitioner, Ex. L Nk Vishav Priya Singh, has alleged that he had made complaint against the CO, 19th Batallion Mahar Regiment of prejudicial treatment meted out by him to the Petitioner. It has been asseverated in the Writ Petition that initially the Brigade Commander had nominated the CO, 17th Kumaon to investigate into the Petitioner's complaint. The CO of 19th Mahar through manipulation got his close friend, the...

Fats Inc. Vs. Zen Technologies Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT260; 2008(103)DRJ693

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.I.A. Nos. 5621/2007 and is No. 8308/20071. Defendant filed is No. 5621 of 2007 Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC to file additional documents. The defendant filed an affidavit by way of evidence on 16th March 2007. Along with the said affidavit, the defendant filed few more additional documents which it is contended could not be filed by the defendant at the time of filing written statement. The second is being No. 8308 of 2007 for similar relief was filed.2. In is No. 5621 of 2007, it is stated that the defendant be allowed to file certificate issued by the statutory auditor showing the sales figures of the defendant Company i.r.o ZEN iFATS and research and development expenses for all products, original invoices and documents showing participation of the defendant in the Exhibitions, documents under which defendant sent its sub-system for exhibition, e-mails received from organizers of exhibition showing that the plaintiff and defendant had par...

Rafiq and anr. Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT306; 2008(101)DRJ106

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.1. Instant appeal is directed against a judgment of conviction dated 17th December, 2005 under Sections 363/364A read with Section 120B IPC and order of sentence dated 17th December, 2005 awarding life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and SI for one year on failing to pay the amount of fine.2. Material facts, stated briefly, leading to prosecution of appellants and two others are that on 14th September, 2001 about 7.30 pm one Mohd. Izhar aged about six years and ten months went missing which was discovered by his parents after about an hour. A search for him by all concerned did not yield any result. Mohd. Ikrar, father of missing child eventually reported the matter to the police. Initially a DD No. 40 B (Ext. PW 9/A) was recorded on 15th September, 2001. On the following day i.e. 16th September, 2001 on child remaining untraced, a FIR under Section 363 IPC vide Ex. PW 3/A was registered at PS Gokalpuri, Delhi. Initially, on 15th September, 2001 a blank cal...