Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Punjab Small Industries and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR478

2. The appellant is rendering service of C&F Agent under a contract entered into with M/s Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and receiving service charges for the same and have paid about Rs. 31.69 lakhs during the disputed period as Service Tax. The appellant has engaged certain parties as sub-contractors who have actually undertaken the main work of receiving the material unloading, weighing, stocking them at the CA yard. The appellant paid the sub-contractors amounts which are less than the amounts received by the appellant from SAIL as contractor. The agreement between the appellant and the sub-contractor has taken into account that the Service Tax payable by the appellant shall be adjustable from the payments made to the sub-contractor for the services rendered by them.3. From the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we are of the, prima facie, view that the services rendered is only one and it has been rendered mainly through the sub-contractors on...

Cce Vs. Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand for extended period and penalties were set aside. The assesses M/s.Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd. also filed a cross objection challenging the demand confirmed in the impugned order.3. Brief facts of the case are that assesses are engaged in the manufacture of hosiery goods. The assesses are also getting export orders. The assesses availed services of individual overseas commission agent under auxiliary services. Show cause notice was issued for demand of service tax for the period from 9.7.2004 to February, 2006 on the ground that the assesses being recipient of services of commission agent from the person who is residing outside India is liable to pay the service tax as recipient of commission agent's services. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty.The Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal, filed by the assesses set aside the demand which is beyond the normal period of limitation and a...

Ramesh Kumar S/O Late Sh. Hari Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant had initially sought two reliefs but at the time of admission relief No. 2 was given up. So, we are concerned only with relief one which reads as under: Issue the directions to the Respondents to grant the temporary status of service to the Applicant on completion of 120 days as casual labour as per provision of para provision of Rule 2511 (Revised 2001) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual.2. It is stated by the applicant that he was originally engaged as casual labour with Delhi Division on 28.7.1975 and worked with them till 15.1.1977 without any break, which is evident from the casual labour card annexed by him at page-11. Looking at better scope of service benefits, he got transferred from Delhi Division to Construction Organization on 15.1.1977 but he was entitled to get temporary status in Delhi Division on completion of 120 days i.e. with effect from 28.1.1977 as per Para 2001 of IREM. Therefore, Delhi Division is bound to grant temporary status to th...

Aman Singh S/O Tikam Singh Vs. Director, Employees State

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry held against the applicant, he was visited with penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect, vide order dated 9.3.2001. Inasmuch as, the allegation against the applicant was with regard to missing of some medicines, vide order dated 7.1.2002 recovery of Rs. 9186/- was ordered from his salary in instalments. It is against this order only that applicant filed OA No. 326/2002, which was disposed of on 2.1.2003, and the order impugned therein was quashed on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to the applicant before passing the said order. The respondents were, however, given liberty to proceed against the applicant by issuing show cause notice. The applicant was then proceeded for recovery proceedings, which resulted into order dated 5.7.2004 directing recovery of Rs. 9186/- from him. The applicant sought review of order dated 2.1.2003 passed in OA No. 326/2002, pleading that he was under the impression that the Tri...

Sh. Jaspal Singh Vs. Sh. O.P. Babbar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT205; 2008(101)DRJ283

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Jaspal Singh was a contesting candidate for the election to the Delhi Legislative Assembly held in December 2003. He contested from Tilak Nagar Assembly Constituency (AC-14). Sudarshan Khatri claims to be a voter in the said Assembly Constituency. One S. Ranjit Singh son of late Gopal Singh R/o 20B/78A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi had filed a nomination paper to contest the ensuing elections from said Assembly Constituency. Vide order dated 15.11.2003 the returning officer rejected the nomination paper filed by S. Ranjit Singh by passing the following order:I have examined the nomination paper in accordance with Section 36 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 and decided as follows:Nomination paper examined with its enclosures and following deficiencies noted:(i) Affidavit as prescribed by ECI not complete and not attested by Notary on all the pages and verification also unattested. (ii) In affidavit on form 26, candidate did not declare in para 2 whether he...

Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Dalmia Shiksha Prathishthan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]305ITR327(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 20th February, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench A, in ITA No. 1059/Del/2002 relevant for the Assessment Year 1997-98.2. The assessed is a trust imparting education through four educational institutions in Orissa and Rajasthan. It is registered under Section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) since 1985. up to and including the Assessment Year 1996-97, the assessed was allowed exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act but for the Assessment Year 1997-98, the Assessing Officer departed from the past stand despite the contention of the assessed that there was no change in its activities, mode of investment or functioning.3. The Assessing Officer took three factors into consideration for deciding against the assessed, namely,-(i) The assessed had let out a property owned by it on rent. According to the assessed, it owned House No. 55 at Palam Vihar, Gurgaon and one of the rooms therein wa...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Vivek Dougall

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]305ITR270(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 11th August, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench D, in IT (SS) A No. 137/Del/2002 relevant for the block period ending on 8th July, 1999.2. The assessed is one of the promoters of M/s Atul Glass Industries Limited (AGIL) and Maharashtra Glass & Agro Limited (MGAL).3. A French company called Sekruti Saint Gobain (SSB) which was also in the same business as AGIL and MGAL, that is, safety glazing of automobile windshields had the intention of becoming a major supplier in India. Accordingly, AGIL, MGAL and SSB decided to join forces to meet the anticipated demand for laminated windshields and a joint venture agreement was entered into between them on 24th February, 1994. As per the joint venture agreement, SSB was to be allotted certain preferential shares in AGIL and MGAL.4. As a result of the joint venture agreement and certain other developments that took place, the promoters, including the assesse...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sarvatra Roadrunners (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2008]301ITR443(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 3rd November, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench G, in ITA No. 4859A/Del/2002 relevant for the Assessment Year 1997-98.2. The assessed had entered into two agreements with M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (SECL) for transportation of coal. Certain disputes arose between the assessed and SECL with the result that the agreements were terminated and disputes referred for arbitration. In terms of the arbitration Award, the assessed was to receive a sum of Rs. 6,57,31,517/-. Objections appear to have been filed to the Award but they were rejected by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 26th July, 1996. Thereafter, SECL challenged the Award before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. While admitting the appeal filed by SECL, the Madhya Pradesh High Court passed the following orders on 14th October, 1996 and 13th December, 1996. The order dated 14th October, 1996 reads as follows:After hearing ...

Ashok Mittal Vs. Mr. Ram Parshotam Mittal and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas11(Delhi); (2008)2CompLJ193(Del)

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, Plaintiff has sought an interim order restraining Defendants to consider and act upon Agenda Items No. 3 and 4 in the forthcoming meeting of the Board of Defendant No. 5 Company.2. Plaintiff is one of the Directors of the Defendant No. 5 Company while Defendants No. 1 and 2 are also Directors on Board of the Company. Defendant No. 2 is wife of Defendant No. 1, Defendants No. 4and5 are additional Directors. The notice of Board Meeting was issued on 17.12.2007 and Agenda Items No. 3and4 are as under:3. To consider reappointment of Shri R.P. Mittal as Managing Director of the Company for a further period of 5 years from 1.1.2008.4. To fix date, time and place for convening Extra Ordinary General Meeting to approve the reappointment of Shri R.P. Mittal as Managing Director.3. Plaintiff seeks injunction against carrying on meeting agenda in respect of above-mentioned two items on the ground that Defendant N...

Harish Dargan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)633

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 31st October, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench E , in IT (SS) A No. 359/Del/2003 relevant for the block Assessment Years 1991-92 to 2001-2002.2. The assessed is the proprietor of M/s Sona Jewellers and is also a Director in M/s Hira Jewellers.3. On the morning of 2nd February, 2001, the assessed was intercepted at Delhi Airport by the Intelligence Wing of the Income Tax Department and was found to be carrying Rs. 18 lakhs in cash. His statement was recorded under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and he stated that approximately Rs. 4 lakhs was available with his proprietary concern M/s Sona Jewellers. He stated that he was carrying Rs. 18 lakhs in cash since he was going to Bombay for purchasing diamonds for M/s Sona Jewellers. 4. As a result of the above, the Income Tax Department conducted a search of his business and residential premises at about 1.00 pm on 2nd February, 200...