Delhi Court August 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. PravIn M. Mehta

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Del)480

S.H. Kapadia, J.Two points arise for determination in this appeal. Firstly, whether the assessed was entitled to claim deduction under section 80HHC on receipt of labour commission of Rs. 46,952. Secondly, whether the department was right in taxing the export reserves withdrawn from the business and transferred to partner's capital account.2. On the first point, it may be mentioned that in view of our judgment in the case of the CIT v. Kantilal Chhotalal, Mumbai decided on 31-7-2000 vide ITA No. 533 of 2000 (reported at (2000) 163 CTR (Bom) 476), we hold that the labour commission/indenting commission was not includible in business profits in the formula : business profits X export turnover/total turnover. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favor of the department and against the assessee.3. On the second point the facts arise as follows :4. On 4-10-1990, the assessed filed its return of income for the assessment year 1990-91. The assessed was engaged in the business of export of di...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Alps Wine Shop (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]246ITR672(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C. J.On being moved by the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question, pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75, has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 20,000 representing liability for bonus for the period 1-4-1972, to 31-12-1972, which arose when Prithvi Pal Singh was carrying on proprietary business was an allowable deduction for the assessment year 1974-75'?2. The factual position, which is almost undisputed, is as under:For the assessment year 1974-75, a claim of Rs. 20,700 as bonus payable to staff was disallowed. It is the stand of the Assessing Officer that the said expenses related to an earlier period and were not relatable to the year in ...

K.L. Singhal Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The appellant, abovenamed, has filed the present appeal against order of District Forum-IV, dated 14.7.1997, in Complaint Case No. 334/96 entitled Shri K.L. Singhal v. M.T.N.L. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the District Forum, averring therein that the telephone No. 516849 had been installed at his old residence at 11, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi-110 055, since 1968. The said telephone number was changed to 522827 sometime in 1985. In November, 1991, the Idgah Exchange was converted into an electronic exchange and thereafter the telephone number of the appellant was again changed to 7524927. The said number after working for the appellant for four days only was further changed to 7524848 on 29.1.1992. Thereafter sometime in the last week of January, 1992, the appelalnt shifted his residence to 129, Bank Enclave, La...

Y. Krishan Vs. M.T.N.L.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order of the District Forum-III dated the 29th December, 1998, passed in Complaint Case No. 922/97 entitled Shri Y. Krishan and Anr. v. MTNL. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum averring therein that he is the subscriber of telephone No. 6894175 and had received a bill for the billing cycle 1.10.1996 for the amount of Rs. 2,945/-, pertaining to the period from 16.7.1996 to 15.9.1996. The total number of calls, shown in the said bill, were 2124 out of which local calls were shown to be 1840 which were excessive as compared to the previous bills received by the appellant/complainant. It was further stated by the complainant that he had lodged a complaint with regard to the said bill dated 1.10.1996 with the opposite party vide his letter dat...

C.B. Aggarwal Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 2nd June, 1995, passed by District Forum-I, in Complaint Case No. 1789/93, entitled Shri C.B. Aggarwal v. The Manager, Central Bank of India, Janakpuri, New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum and, in that complaint, the main grievance of the appellant was regarding non-payment of proper interest by the respondent. It was stated by the appellant that in response to an advertisement given by the respondent in the press in April, 1992, regarding Stock Investment Scheme, the appellant visited the Janakpuri, New Delhi Branch of the respondent Bank and on 2.5.1992, opened a Savings Bank Account, for the purpose of obtaining Stock Investments under t...