Delhi Court March 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Estel Communications (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Del)102; [2009]138ITR185(Delhi)

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order dt. 8th Sept., 2007, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA No. 4560/Del/2003 relevant for the asst. yr. 2001-02.2. According to the assessee, it is providing internet access of a certain bandwidth to its subscribers. The main server, on the basis of which the internet services are provided is located in USA. For the services rendered by the assessed to the subscribers in India, it levies a charge and out of this, some amount is paid to the US party, that is, M/s Teleglobe International Corporation (for short 'Teleglobe').3. According to the AO, the assessed was liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to the US party. For arriving at this conclusion, the AO invoked the provisions of Section 9(1)(i) and Section 9(1)(vii) of the IT Act, 1961.4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessed preferred an appeal which was allowed by the CIT(A). It was held that the assessed was merely providing internet services ...

Shri Balaji Network Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

2. M/s. Shri Balaji Networks as well as Revenue filed these appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Demand in respect of service provided by the appellants M/s. Shri Balaji Networks as cable operator.4. Contention of the appellants is that addition of Rs. 3.84 lakhs for the period 2004-05 was wrongly made in assessable value on the basis of statements of different cable operators. Contention is that as for the year 2004-05 the appellants are not working as Multy System Operator (M.S.O.) and that they started working as M.S.O. from year 2005-06.Therefore, this amount was wrongly added in the assessable value for the year 2004-05. It is also submitted that for the year 2005-06 the benefit of notification No. 6/2005 was wrongly denied. The appellants also submitted that they are not liable for any penalty.5. In the Revenue's appeal contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the security deposit as Rs. 1 lakh whereas it is Rs. 50,000/-. Revenue's co...

Hc Randhir Singh Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Randhir Singh, Head Constable in Delhi Police, applicant herein, through present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks setting aside of order dated 29.12.2006 vide which his representation for out of turn promotion was rejected and in consequence of setting aside of order aforesaid, the applicant seeks out of turn promotion to the next higher rank.2. Facts of the case reveal that the applicant joined Delhi Police as Constable (Exe.) in 1982 and was promoted as Head Constable (Exe.) in 1992. It is the case of the applicant that in 1996 he and one Satbir Singh, then Constable, arrested two criminals namely Vinod Kumar and Krishan Kumar @ Tonny on 11.05.1996 along with a loaded country made pistol by risking their lives. The applicant caught hold of the criminals due to which, several serious cases, including that of murders, robbery, were solved. Even earlier the applicant had been successful by placing his life in danger,...

Shri Kesar Singh, S/O Shri Mohan Vs. Delhi Development Authority,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. On the consent of the parties, the applications are disposed of by a common order.2. The applicants complain that in the matter of promotions to the cadre of Assistant Engineers, their employer, the Delhi Development Authority, had adopted double standards and introduced discrimination where opportunities to develop their career have been jeopardized.Although we find that there were grievances per se on record, in view of the laches on their part, perhaps it may not be possible for us to prescribe a remedy at this distant point of time. We may advert to the contentions raised by the applicants as well as the response made by the respondents, as were highlighted.3. The writ petitions are seen to have been filed in the year 1992. For some reason or the other, the applications were not heard and disposed of, and in view of the Notification dated 25.07.2007, the petitions were transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication. We had opportunity to hear the Learned Counsel for the applican...

R.C. Lahoria S/O Tota Ram Lahoria Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. R. C. Lahoria, the applicant herein, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, was appointed in the capacity of Inspector of Works Grade-III (Rs.425-700) in 1980 and was promoted as Inspector of Works Grade-I (Rs.700-900/2000-3200) in 1981, but was assigned seniority w.e.f.4.8.1983. When on the basis of seniority so fixed, he was not promoted to the next grade of Rs. 840-1040/2375-3500 w.e.f. 8.9.1987, he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 48/1991. From the order passed by this Tribunal dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure A-4) in the OA aforesaid, it appears his grievance was that he was not considered for promotion to the next higher post on the basis of his seniority as Inspector of Works Grade-I, and instead the respondents had treated him to be junior to others based on his seniority in the initial recruitment grade of Inspector of Works Grade-III. He filed the Application seeking following directions: a) A direction to the respondents to determine the applicant's suitability for promotio...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hero Honda Finlease Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)115TTJ(Delhi)752

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 20th Oct., 2000 of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi pertaining to 1994-95 assessment year. 1(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation @ 40 per cent on leased trucks against 20 per cent allowed by the AO. 1(ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the return of income the assessee had claimed depreciation @ 20 per cent and during the course of assessment proceedings a letter was filed claiming depreciation @ 40 per cent and such letter was filed beyond the period stipulated in Section 139(5).2. Right at the outset, it was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that the point at issue is covered in assessee's favour by virtue of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bansal Credits Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 179 CTR (Del) 23 : (2003) 259 ITR 69 (Del) and the orders dt. 27th Feb., 2003...

Jamirul Nisha and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ1393

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Present appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi dismissing the claim application of the appellants.2. Appellants had filed a claim application under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation in sum of Rs. 6 lakhs on account of the death of Late Sh. Sarfaraj Khan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) alleged to have been caused when he had accidentally fallen from a train.3. In the claim application it was averred that on 10.05.2003 the deceased had boarded EMU passenger train GDM 1 from Nizamuddin station for a journey from Nizamuddin to New Delhi Railway Station. That since the train was overcrowded the deceased got a place near the door of a compartment of the train. That at around 8.45 AM when the train was approaching Tilak Bridge Railway Station there was a sudden jerk due to which the deceased fell down from the train and died of injuries received as a result...

Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. and anr. Vs. R.B. Impex and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: LC2008(2)244; 2008(37)PTC262(Del)

ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. The above two applications have been made by the plaintiffs under Section 22(4) of Designs Act and under Section 151 CPC with a prayer that the Court should stay the proceedings pending before the Controller of Design for cancellation of the designs of the plaintiffs initiated at the behest of defendants and also that these proceedings should be transferred before this Court and this Court should hear the proceedings of the cancellation of designs.2. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants alleging infringement of its design nos. 184136 and 184137. The defendant No. 3 in its written statement took defenses as available under Section 19 of the Designs Act. The defendant No. 3 also initiated cancellation proceedings before the learned Controller of Designs against the design nos. 184136 and 184137 in respect of an insecticidal coil and the Controller of Designs framed an issue to the fo...

Riga Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Kessels Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: III(2008)BC62

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.Crl. M.A. No.6249/2007Allowed subject to just exceptions.Crl. REV. P. 377/20071. The petitioner placed an offer on the respondent vide its letter dated 23.3.2005 for supply of Back Pressure Turbo Generating Sets. There is stated to be a subsequent amendment dated 17.5.2005 whereby it was agreed that the erection and commissioning of the equipment was to be completed latest by first week of November, 2005. The petitioner had given two post-dated cheques to the respondent in May, 2005; dated 8.11.2005 for Rs. 5,75,000/- and dated 26.12.2005 for Rs. 11,50,000/-. There are disputes which have arisen in respect of implementation of the purchase order. It is not necessary to go into that issue. Suffice to say that the petitioner did not want the respondent to present the cheques. However, the respondent presented the cheque for Rs. 11,50,000/-, which was not honored in view of the stop payment instructions of the petitioner.2. The respondent sent a letter dated 1.3.2006...

Ajay Sampson (Minor) Vs. Council for the Indian School Certificate Exa ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(102)DRJ536

Gita Mittal, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by master Ajay Sampson through his father and natural guardian Sh. Sampson Samuel contending that the petitioner is a student of the Ingraham Institute English School at Ghaziabad, (arrayed as respondent No. 2 herein) since 1999 when he joined class III onwards. In April, 1996 the petitioner was promoted to class X by the school. The petitioner's submission is that as he was eligible to take the examination and had also paid the examination fees for appearing in the class X board examination in March, 2007 which was to be held by the Council of the Indian School Certificate Examination-respondent No. 1 herein, to which the respondent No. 2 was affiliated.2. As per the writ petition in March, 2007, the principal of the respondent No. 2 school called the petitioner's father and informed him that though the role number/admit card of his ward had been received by the school from the council-respondent No. 1; despite shortage of attendance...