Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)72ITD97(Delhi)
1. When these three appeals together with several other appeals of similar type were pending in the Tribunal all over the country, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax III, Delhi, addressed a letter dated 14-8-1998 bringing to the notice of the President the pendency of several appeals, involving block assessment orders, filed by the assessee in which grounds/additional grounds were raised about the legality of the approval given by the Commissioners of Income-tax approving the block assessment orders. The main contention of the assessees in those cases is that the Commissioner is required by law to give an opportunity of hearing to the assessees before giving approval and it is also contended that the Commissioner is required by law to record his reasoning in writing while approving the order of the Assessing Officer. This issue is involved in almost all the block assessments all over the country numbering hundreds. There is a possibility of difference of opinion amongst different Be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2002)(149)ELT716TriDel
1.These are three appeals filed by M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s SIL'), being aggrieved with the two separate orders-in-appeal, both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The issue for consideration in all these three appeals is, whether the benefit of modvat credit under Notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.1997 (as amended) could be availed of in respect of the duty paid inputs captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable specified final products, in a case where the central excise duty on the inputs had been paid under Section 3-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. M/s SIL were availing of the benefit of modvat credit in respect of re-rolled non-alloy steel products, bars, flats, angles etc.classifiable under sub-heading no. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, manutactured in their re-rolling mills, when u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2003)134PLR18
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The perennial problem of costing of DDA flats has once again given rise to this batch of writ petitions.2. The petitioners were originally registrants under the New Pattern Scheme of 1979 (NPS). In September 1993 a self financing scheme VI-B was announced and persons registered under the NPS were permitted to convert to self-financing scheme. The petitioners applied for conversion and their conversion were accepted.3. In 1994-1985 the SFS VII and VIII scheme registrants were allocated flats but no allocation was made in respect of VI-B scheme. On 8.8.1996 IX SFS scheme was announced and the same was open to genera public as also to the registrants of VI-B scheme. It was stated for the petitioners that this would be the last opportunity given to them and other registrants of VI-B Self Financing Scheme. The petitioners got them registered under the scheme but were still not allocated flats in the draw of lots held for the said IX Self Financing Scheme which resu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ224
D.K. Jain, J.1. In this third round of litigation with the Sales Tax authorities, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 20 March 2001, passed by the Deputy Collector (Recovery)/Collector, Sales Tax, New Delhi, holding the petitioner company to be the transferee company, liable to pay the outstanding sales tax dues of the transferor company, namely M/s. Byford Leasing Limited, hereinafter referred as the Byford, in terms of Section 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short the Act) and having defaulted in discharging the said liability, liable to be proceeded against under Section 139 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the Land Reforms Act).2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, we shall briefly notice the material facts, which are as follows:The first petitioner is a company incorporated on 9 March 1998 with the main object of carrying on the business of collection, processing an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : (2006)203CTR(Del)550; [2006]283ITR212(Delhi)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 10.2.2005 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') issued by the Income Tax Officer in respect of the Assessment Year 2001-2002. It is also directed against the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Income Tax Officer in response to the objections to the said notice of 10.2.2005 filed by the assessed (Petitioner No. 1). By virtue of this order dated 17.8.2005, the assessed's objections have been overruled and its request to drop proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the said Act have been rejected and the reassessment has been directed to be proceeded with. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that two issues arise for our consideration in this writ petition. The first issue relates to the maintainability of the writ petition for quashing a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT305; 2010(1)KarLJ472
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd September, 2009 of the learned single Judge (S. Ravindra Bhat, J) in the writ petition filed by the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India (hereinafter, 'the CPIO') nominated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'the Act') questioning correctness and legality of the order dated 6th January, 2009 of the Central Information Commission (hereinafter, 'the CIC') whereby the request of the respondent No. 1 (a public person) for supply of information concerning declaration of personal assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court was upheld.PREFACE2. The subject matter at hand involves questions of great importance concerning balance of rights of individuals and equities against the backdrop of paradigm changes brought about by the legislature through the Act ushering in an era of transparency, probity and accountability as also the increasing expectation of the civil society tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 06, 2014 WP(C) No.3673/2010 ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Lakshmeesh Kamath and Mr.Umang Gupta, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and Ms.Neha Singh, Advocates for DOT Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for CAG Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari and Ms.Ravjyot Singh, Advocates for UOI Ms.Sangeeta Singh, Advocate with Mr.Kumar Rajan Mishra, Advocate for TRAI WP(C) No.3679/2010 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gopal Jain, Advocate versus DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: January 06, 2014 WP(C) No.3673/2010 ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Ramji Srinivasan, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Lakshmeesh Kamath and Mr.Umang Gupta, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and Ms.Neha Singh, Advocates for DOT Mr.Aman Lekhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gaurang Kanth, Advocate for CAG Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Neeraj Chaudhari and Ms.Ravjyot Singh, Advocates for UOI Ms.Sangeeta Singh, Advocate with Mr.Kumar Rajan Mishra, Advocate for TRAI WP(C) No.3679/2010 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Abhishek Manu Singhavi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gopal Jain, Advocate versus DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Maneesha Dhir, Advocate with Ms.Vanessa Singh and M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. Though based on different set of facts, the controversy in all the petitions centers on common issues relating to the exercise of legislative power and executive control in the administration of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). 2. The parties to the writ petitions and the orders impugned have been set out in the following Table so as to get a glimpse of the controversy involved in each writ petition. Sl.No.Writ PetitionPartiesImpugned order/action1.W.P.(C) No.5888/2015GNCTD vs. UOINotifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs empowering the Lt. Governor to exercise the powers in respect of matters connected with 'Services' and directing the ACB Police Station not to take cognizance of offences against officials of Central Government.2.W.P.(C) No.7887/2015Rajender Prashad vs. GNCTD and Ors.Notification dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:31. t January, 2019 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2019 + W.P.(C) 4374/2018 & CM No.16982/2018 ACTION COMMITTEE UNAIDED RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOLS ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kamal Gupta and Ms. Pragya Agrawal, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION AND ANR Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, SC ..... RESPONDENTS for GNCTD with Mr. Chirayu Jain and Ms. N. Goyal, Advs. Mr. Khagesh B. Jha, Ms. Shikha Sharma Bagga, Advs. for Justice for All Reserved on:6. h February, 2019 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2019 + W.P.(C) 13546/2018 & CM APPL. 52763/2018 (for stay) MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY AND ANR ....... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Romy Chacko, Mr. Vedanta Varma, Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Mr. Akhil Kumar Gola and Ms. Mannat Sandhu, Advs. versus DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ramesh Singh, SC with Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, ASC for W.P.(C) 4374/2018 & W.P...
Tag this Judgment!