Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Shri Shiv Kant S/O Late Shri Ram Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(i) to quash the impugned orders dated 2.3.2006, 21.08.06 and 3.4.2007 (Annexure A-1 to A-3); (ii) to direct the respondents to declare the result of the applicant as selected for appointment/promotion as Postman in view of the marks secured by him in the examination held on 15.1.2006 as per the marks list supplied to him vide letter dated 4.7.2007; (iii) to grant the consequential benefits of appointment as Postman and all attendant benefits including monetary benefits; (iv) to grant such other benefits as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit in the interest of justice.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was initially appointed as Extra Departmental Agent (hereinafter referred to as EDA) (Stamp Vendor) on 23.11.1994. He continued up to 26.6.1999, whereafter his services were terminated. Being aggrieved, he filed O.A. No. 1515/1999 which was disposed off by judgment dated 26.6.2000 with the following directions: The respondents to consider regularization/ absorption of the applicant...

Tajender Singh S/O Shri Joginder Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant, has sought a direction to the respondents to interpolate his name in the panel of Driver (Goods) Grade Rs. 5000-8000 as he had qualified the written examination yet, in the final panel, his name has not been shown though his juniors have been empanelled.2. It is stated by the applicant that he is an Engine Driver/Trainer.He was senior to Shri Manish Jain and Shri Gopal. They had all appeared in the written examination for the post of Driver (Goods) conducted pursuant to notification dated 20.6.2005 (page 9). He had done very well in the written examination, yet when order dated 4.12.2006 was issued, his name was missing from the said list while name of his juniors were shown in the said list at Sl. No. 26 and 28 (page 16). He sought information under Right To Information (RTI) when he was informed that he has got 34.5 marks out of 50 in the written examination but in other parameters, namely, record of service and seniority he could not get enough marks to ach...

Shri Ram Dass Singh S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, has sought a direction to the respondents to interpolate his name in the panel of Driver (Goods) Grade Rs. 5000-8000 as he had qualified in the written examination yet, in the final panel, his name has not been shown though his juniors have been empanelled.2. It is stated by the applicant that he is an Engine Driver/Trainer.He was senior to Shri Manish Jain and Shri Gopal. They had all appeared in the written examination for the post of Driver (Goods) conducted pursuant to notification dated 20.6.2005 (page 8). He had done very well in the written examination, yet when order dated 4.12.2006 was issued, his name was missing from the said list, while name of his juniors were shown in the said list at Sl. No. 26 and 28 (page 12). He sought information under Right To Information (RTI) when he was informed that he has got 60% marks in the written examination but in other parameters, namely, record of service and seniority he could no...

Dcit Vs. Nits Softech Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeal filed by the revenue and the cross objection tiled by the assessee arise out of the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) dated 21-3-2005 in relation to block assessment years 1991-92 to 2001-02.2. Shri L.M. Pandey CIT (DR) appeared on behalf of the Department whereas Shri Salil Kapur Adv. along with Shri Anil Jain CA and Sana Koijani Adv. appeared on behalf of the assessee.3. In its cross objection, initially the assessee had taken following two grounds: 1. The notice under Section 158BD without any date directing the assessee to file the return within 15 days of the service is illegal and bad in law. The assessment completed under Section 158BD/158BC is also illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Hence the same is liable to be quashed on this account alone. 2. No copy of satisfaction note if any, recorded before the issue of notice Under Section 158BD was made available.4. Thereafter, application was moved by the assessee for admitting additional ground. This appli...

Bagpet Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)304ITR114(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.7.2006 of CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2003-04. The assessee in this appeal has raised disputes on two different grounds, which have been dealt with in the succeeding paras.2. The dispute raised in ground No. 1 is regarding disallowance of deduction of Rs. 2114000/- claimed by the assessee on account of compensation paid to Ex-shareholders as per the direction of the Company Law Board. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that minority shareholders who held 56100 equity shares of face value of Rs. 5.61 lacs had filed petition under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act alleging oppression and mismanagement by the majority shareholders. The Company Law Board vide order dated 31.1.2001 held that in case the minority shareholders were interested in selling the shares and the company decided to purchase the shares and would paid interest @ 21% from the date money was remitted into the shares of the company till date of purch...

Klm Royal Dutch Airlines Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Both these appeals by assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi dated 29.11.2001.2. Though several grounds are raised, the contention of appellant (herein referred to as 'KLM') is that it is not subject to tax in India in terms of Article 8 of the DTAA between India and Netherland. It is also contended that the receipt by way of recovery of rent from CSC India P. Ltd. (in short 'CSC') in respect of rent payable to Airport Authority of India (in short 'AAI') is not chargeable to tax and even if so, the rent paid to AAI is to be reduced from the rent recovered from CSC which brings the taxable income to nil.3. The appellant is a company incorporated in Netherland. The main activity of the assessee is operation of aircrafts in international traffic i.e. transport of passenger and cargo in and out of India. In respect of cargo business, KLM has obtained licence to use the premises situated at Shed No. 12, FACT Building, Bombay measuring 503.50 sq.mts. and space o...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hewlett Packard India (P) Ltd. (Now Mer ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Del)378; [2009]314ITR55(Delhi)

Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No. 5417/Del/04 relevant for the assessment year 2001-2002.2. The Revenue had raised five issues for our consideration. In respect of two of those issues, it was stated by Learned Counsel for the Revenue on 23rd May, 2007 that the matter is covered either by a judgment of this Court or by a judgment of the Supreme Court. As such, those two issues were not pressed. With regard to the remaining three issues, we heard Learned Counsel for the parties and in our opinion no substantial question of law arises in respect of these three issues also.3. The first issue is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was correct in law in permitting the assessed to lead additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules).4. It appears that the assessed had wanted to lead additional evidence before the Co...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahaan Foods Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Del)148; [2009]177TAXMAN274(Delhi)

V.B. Gupta, J.1. By way of this common judgment, all the above five appeals are being disposed of since the common question of law is involved in all these case.2. Brief facts leading to dispute are that the assessed is engaged in the business of manufacturing of dairy whitener and skimmed milk powder. The assessed claimed deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as 'Act') from assessment year 1995-96 onwards. The assessed's claim of deduction was initially not objected to for the assessment year 1995-96 as no scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was made and only processing of the return of income was done under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. During the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 1996-97, the Assessing Officer asked the assessed to justify its claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessed submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year 1995-96 and therea...

Rai Singh Vs. State (N.C.T.)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ724

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner was driving a Rajasthan Roadways Bus on 2.9.1994 at about 5.00 A.M. and it is alleged that the bus was driven on the wrong side rashly and negligently. In the process, the petitioner is alleged to have hit an unknown person crossing the road, who died on the spot. The petitioner was charged for offences Under Section 279/304A IPC and pleaded not guilty and prayed for trial.2. The case of the prosecution is that the body of the deceased person was taken for post-mortem and the medical report was placed on record. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, but the only direct evidence is of PW 1, Mr. Om Prakash, who is alleged to be an eye witness. Mr. Om Prakash has deposed that he was attending to the nature's call in the morning when he saw the bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner on the wrong side which resulted in the bus hitting the deceased and causing his death on the spot. The witness further deposed that the bu...

Harjeet Singh Maini Vs. Paramjit Singh Maini

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT127; 2008(102)DRJ446

Hima Kohli, J.1. By this common order, the Court proposes to dispose of an application under Section 10 of the CPC, being I.A. No. 5370/2006 filed by the defendant in CS(OS) No. 664/2005, Shri Paramjit Singh Maini praying inter alias for stay of further proceedings in the suit till disposal of suit bearing No. 272/2002 entitled 'Ram Singh Maini (deceased) through LR v. Harjeet Singh Maini', pending before the Civil Judge, Delhi, and the transfer petition being Tr.P. (C) No. 12/2006 entitled 'Harjit Singh Maini v. Paramjit Singh Maini' filed by the plaintiff in CS(OS) No. 664/2005, Shri Harjit Singh Maini, praying inter alias for transfer of Suit No. 272/2002 from the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi, to this Court. 2. A reference to the factual matrix of the case is necessary before proceeding to deal with the aforesaid application under Section 10 of the CPC and the Transfer Petition. In October, 2002, the father of the parties, Shri Ram Singh Maini filed a civil suit as the owner of the p...