Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri S. Dhanabal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]309ITR268(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN242(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal, filed on behalf of the revenue, pertains to the assessment year 2001-02. It is directed against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on 09.02.2007.2. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs 41,30,950/- and claimed 100% deduction under Section 80HHE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') in respect of the profits from rendering software services. It is an admitted position that for this assessment year, i.e., 2001-02, the assessee could have claimed only 80% deduction. The entire issue is with regard to the claim of the assessee for 100% deduction and as to whether the assessee in doing so made itself liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act.3. In the course of the assessment under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer pointed out to the assessee that his claim of 100% deduction under Section 80HHE was not permissible and he...

Soul Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Del)211

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the notice under Section 226(3) of IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act') issued on 25th July, 2008 by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-X, New Delhi whereby the manager, Canara Bank, New Delhi, has been directed to attach the debt of the assessee under Section 222 of the said Act and the said bank has been directed to make the payment in pursuance to the said notice in view of the fact that the assessee holds the bank account in the said bank and the assessee/petitioner is allegedly in default of the amount mentioned in the said notice i.e., Rs. 3,57,74,685. A similar notice of the same date has also been issued to the manager Syndicate Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi where the petitioner also holds an account.2. The effect of these notices is that the entire banking operations of the petitioner have come to a stand-still. The notices have been issued because there is a demand outstanding against the petitioner. On...

Jitender Pal Bhardwaj Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ361

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. The respondent launched a housing scheme known as Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 for allotment of plots. The petitioner, who is now 71years of age applied in the said scheme nearly 27 years ago. At the time when he made the application, the petitioner was not the owner of any other property in Delhi. The eligibility condition prescribed in the brochure pertaining to the Rohini Residential Scheme, inter alia, provided that any individual who is not a minor may apply for allotment of only one plot if he/she fulfills the conditions laid down therein. Condition No. (ii) is relevant for the purpose of this case and it reads:(ii) The individual or his wife/her husband or any of his/her minor children do not own in full or in part on lease-hold or free-hold basis any residential plot of land or a house or have not been allotted on hire-purchase basis a residential flat in Delhi/New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. If, however, individual share of the applicant in the jointly owne...

Mrs. Kulwant Kaur, Retd. Pgt Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nct,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Mrs. Kulwant Kaur, the applicant herein, initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Punjabi) on 20.11.1974, having earned only one promotion in her career up to 31.12.1997 when she was indeed promoted as Lecturer, admittedly became entitled to second financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme way back in 1999 when she completed the requisite period of service for grant of second financial upgradation, is craving for the same ever since when she was in service and even after her retirement. The respondents while admitting the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of Lecturer, have, however, remained recklessly inactive for a period beyond imagination of an ordinary person. The only ground as may be gathered from the pleadings of the parties and accompanying documents and the submissions made before us for not denying but stalling the cause of the applicant is that the confidential reports for the years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 are...

Ved Pal Singh Malik S/O Sh. Kalu Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In view of Notification dated 25.07.2007, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had transferred pending Writ Petition CWP 6784 of 2001 to this Tribunal. The pleadings had been complete and when the case was taken up for hearing, the parties were ready to go on. We may note the brief facts, which might be relevant for disposal of this application. The applicant has a case that he has been overlooked in the matter of promotion. He had joined the DDA as a Mate (Horticulture) in 1979. He is a Graduate in Agriculture, and was promoted as Garden Supervisor on 06.01.1983.2. It would have been possible for him to get promotion to the post of Sectional Officer (Horticulture), it is urged. Reliance is placed on the Recruitment Rules as Annexure P-1A. It is a Group `C' post. The rules show that 50% of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the balance 50% by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. In case of recruitment by promotion, this is to be carried out from Garden Superv...

Suresh Chandra Jha Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Delhi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A writ petition filed as CWP 4066 of 1996 had been transferred to this Tribunal by order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 09.10.2007. The respondents had taken a stand that even at the time when the writ petition had been filed, it was belated by normal standards, and by the further passage of time, of about 12 years, the claims have become stale and not reckonable by applying normal standards. There is a technical objection also raised. Persons, who might be affected, have not been brought to the array of parties and the relief if granted would have affected their settled rights. On the face of such objections, however, we will examine the claims that have been put in and highlighted by Mr. Padma Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant.2. At the time of filing the writ petition in 1996, the applicant was working as a UDC in the Electrical Circle-I of the Delhi Development Authority. His prayer was that a seniority list issued in 1991 required to be set aside, and the ap...

M.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT220; 2008(105)DRJ685

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Section 142 and 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India. However, during the course of submissions, petitioner has not pressed his prayer and has confined his prayer in the writ petition for quashing of the orders dated 7th July, 2000, 13th September, 2000 and 18th June, 2001 which are annexed with the writ petition as annexure-J Colly. and annexure-L by which the petitioner's prayer for renewal of the licence granted under the Authorisation of Railway Travellers' Service Agents Rules, 1985 was declined.2. The facts are in a narrow compass and may be briefly noted as under:Petitioner had applied for a grant of licence in January, 1997, under the aforesaid Rules. Petitioner was duly granted licence on 06.01.1997 which was to expire on 5th January, 2000. As required the petitioner applied for renewal of licence on 28.09.1999. It is urged that renewal of t...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Ram Devi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]176TAXMAN113(Delhi)

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Tribunal dated 16-3-2007 in respect of the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98. By virtue of the order dated 12-10-2007, the predecessor Bench had issued notice to the respondent limited to question No. (c) mentioned in the memo of appeal. We are, therefore, limiting ourselves to that question alone. The said question relates to the issue of whether the Tribunal was correct in accepting the additional agricultural income of the assessee by relying on post search facts, and ignoring the fact that the additional agricultural income already formed part of the undisclosed income under Section 158BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. This issue has been raised in the context of two orchards belonging to the assessee; one at Surath (Mandi) and the other at Kullu, both of which are in Himachal Pradesh. It is an admitted position that the assessee has various fruit bearing trees in the said orchards. The fruits that are p...

Madan Lal Bansal Vs. Roshan Lal Singla and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 153(2008)DLT278

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.1. The plaintiff has, in this suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property, filed these applications for relief of restraining the defendants from alienating, selling or creating third party rights or parting with possession of property No. 29, Block B-2 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi subject matter of Agreement of Sale and also for directing the defendants to furnish security to secure the alternative relief of recovery of double the earnest money, claimed in the suit. 2. It is the admitted position that an Agreement to Sell dated 16th January, 2006 with respect to the aforesaid property was executed by the defendants as owner in favour of the plaintiff. The terms of the said agreement relevant for the present were as under:(i) The total sale consideration was Rs 1,11,21,000/-;(ii) The defendants had raised a loan of Rs 47 lacs from the Citi Financial Bank by equitable mortgage of the said property;(iii) The plaintiff paid Rs 11 lacs prio...

Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 151(2008)DLT770

Vikramajit Sen, J.1. The Petitioner challenges the preventive detention of his brother, Dharmender Jhethwani, son of Late Asa Ram, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA'). The said impugned Order is dated 18.2.2008 and is accompanied by the 'Grounds' of even date on which the said Order is predicated.2. Briefly stated, the Detenu had reported at the Red Channel of Customs, Delhi at 2330 hours on 17th October, 2007 and had declared the total value of goods sought to be imported by him as his baggage at Rupees Sixty Thousand. Since the conduct of the Detenu was found to be suspicious by the officers of the Customs Department, an inspection was carried out of the three checked-in- baggages and two hand-baggages carried by the Petitioner/Detenu. It is not in dispute that the items and quantities declared by the Petitioner/Detenu in the Embarkation Form were found drastically less than what was actual...