Delhi Court February 2008 Judgments

Shri Charan Das, Sr. Clerk and Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants, two in number, through this OA seek seniority in the cadre of Permanent Way Mistry (PWM) from the date of ad hoc officiation for further consideration in restructuring from 2003 for promotion as PWI Grade III. Also assailed respondents' order dated 17.1.2007 whereby their request for assigning seniority has been turned down.2. Applicants, who were initially appointed as Gangmen were eligible for promotion to the next post of PWM for which a selection was held in the year 1979. Though applicants appeared and qualified but the selection was cancelled. Being senior most Gangmen, applicants have been promoted as PWM on ad hoc basis in the year 1980-81 respectively with the approval of the competent authority and continued from time to time. However, when they were reverted in the year 1987 to the post of Gangmen, led to filing of OA 897/1987 before the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal where a decision referred on 20.2.1995 put the applicants back as ad hoc PWM with directio...

Shri S.C. JaIn (Since Deceased Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By order dated 28.09.2007, the Delhi High Court, had transferred, among others, CWP No. 1023 of 1991, to be heard and disposed of by this Tribunal consequent to Notification dated 25.07.2007. The applicant, S.C. Jain, through the said writ petition, had challenged disciplinary proceedings taken against him, and especially the order of removal, Annexure `H' as also the appellate order, Annexure `J'. The articles of charges (Annexure A-1) and the disciplinary proceedings as a whole were subjected to challenge. He had been removed from service, and no interim orders had been passed in the Writ Petition.2. The applicant was an Assistant Engineer working in the Delhi Development Authority, first respondent. The Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority is the second respondent. The applicant had died, during the course of the Writ Petition, on 27.12.2002 and the legal representatives had got themselves impleaded to the proceedings.3. As an Assistant Engineer, the deceased officer, had ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Avdesh Kumar Parvinder S. Kochar

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)137

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the decision of the CIT(A)-II, Dehradun dt. 12th May, 2005 by virtue of which penalty of Rs. 21 lakhs imposed under Section 221 of the IT Act, 1961 has been cancelled.2. We have heard the parties and perused the records. Relevant facts briefly stated are that the assessee had filed a return of income for the asst. yr. 2000-01 on 31st Oct., 2000 declaring an income of Rs. 76,73,190 from the real estate business The assessee had paid self-assessment tax of only Rs. 7,50,000. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on 22nd Jan., 2001 and demand of Rs. 30,52,501 created (tax plus surcharge of Rs. 25,32,153 with interest under Section 234B at Rs. 3,79,815 and under Section 234C at Rs. 1,40,533).The assessee was unable to pay the aggregate demand. The sum of Rs. 7,50,000 had been paid by the assessee earlier leaving balance demand of Rs. 23,02,501 as outstanding. A request had been made to the AO for granting instalments. The assessee had made the p...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Pride Foramer Sas

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Delhi)369

1. These are cross-appeals and they are directed against the order of CIT(A) dt. 3rd Feb., 2006 for asst. yr. 2002-03. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the revenues on account of reimbursement of expenses received by the non-resident company are not includible in the gross receipts of the nonresident company. 1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO with regard to taxing the interest on tax refunds as business income as per Article 7 instead of specific provisions of Article 12(2) of DTAA with France merely on the existence of PE when the interest is payable statutorily on tax refunds and neither arises through the PE nor effectively connected with the PE. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the order of AO by taking the interest on tax refunds as business receipts, when the interest on tax refunds does not depend on the existence or non-existence of PE in India and is statutorily dependent on th...

Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT642; 2008(103)DRJ342

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.1. As the issue involved in these appeals are identical, we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment.2. Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation, in the year 1996, Department of Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi devised a Scheme for relocation of industries from non-conforming areas to various other authorised industrial complexes in Delhi, either developed or to be developed by the authorities for the purpose of relocating industrial units3. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for allotment of industrial plots under relocation scheme. A brochure in respect of the relocation scheme of 1996 was issued by the Office of Commissioner of Industries, Government of NCT of Delhi and implementation of the said scheme was entrusted to the Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation ('DSIDC' for short). At the time of application, the applicant was required to deposit earnest money @ Rs...

Ram Chander Sharma @ Pandit Vs. the State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 149(2008)DLT326

P.K. Bhasin, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 27.02.1997 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (Designated Court under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) in Sessions Case No. 128/95 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine. 2. The case set-forth by the prosecution against the appellant is that an eye was being kept on the persons meeting the terrorists detained in Tihar Jail by the officials of Operation Cell of Delhi Police and during the surveillance it was revealed that some jail warders were engaged in the sale of drugs inside jail to the inmates. On 15.07.95 at 5.00 p.m. secret informer gave an information on telephone to Inspector Surender Singh (PW-8) posted in the Operation Cell and who was d...

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kesar Medicaments and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 148(2008)DLT198; 2008(102)DRJ106; LC2008(2)1; 2008(36)PTC568(Del)

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present matter is concerned with a claim of infringement of the patent of the plaintiff in respect of 'a device for detection of antibodies to HepatIT is C Virus (for short, HCV) in human serum and plasma'. The early detection of HCV is stated to be critical as there is no vaccine for the same.2. The plaintiff is stated to be a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of diagnostic kits and is also stated to be a holder of various patents, designs and trademarks in respect of its products. The plaintiff's application (I.A. No. 11883 of 2006) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code') is for the issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's Patent No. 194638 dated 22nd September, 2006 in a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages.3. The plaintiff further claims to be a pioneer company enjoying ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhan Textile (P) Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)366; [2008]300ITR176(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd December, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' in ITA No. 2892/D/2004 relevant for the Assessment Year 1996-97.2. The assessment in respect of the assessed was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) on 31st March, 1999.3. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] who passed an order dated 12th May, 2000, the operative portion of which is important and that reads as follows:It was also the case of the ld. Counsel that the additions were made without any basis and there was no history of case which could justify such an assessment I have considered this argument also. It is true that there is no history of case in respect of the additions made in the assessment order. At least nothing is mentioned in the order in this respect. It is also felt that the Ld. AO could ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Drilling and Industries Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)215CTR(Del)275; [2008]301ITR304(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 1st February, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'F' in ITA No. 4803/Del/2002 relevant for the Assessment Year 1989-90.2. The case has rather a chequered history beginning with the assessment order dated 18th March, 1991 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act).3. It appears that the assessment order did not contain the computation of income under Section 115J of the Act. The assessed had computed a loss at Rs. 46,65,746/- while determining the book profit for the purposes of Section 115J of the Act but while arriving at this figure, the assessed brought forward depreciation or loss that was wrongly calculated.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the view that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly issued a notice to the assessed under Section 263 of the Act on 29th No...

New Delhi Auto Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Sp ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)628; [2008]300ITR83(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. Admit.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length, in our view the following substantial question of law arises:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that assumption of jurisdiction under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not illegal, even though the mandatory requirement of recording 'satisfaction' to the effect that undisclosed income belonged to the appellant was patently lacking on the face of record.3. The filing of paper books is dispensed with.4. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'A' in I.T. (SS) A. No. 26/Del/99 relevant for the block period 1st July, 1987 to 20th March, 1996.5. A search was conducted on 20th March, 1996 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at various premises belonging to M/s Elora Mechanical Products (P) Ltd., the office of the assessed and the residence of the Directors of th...