Delhi Court September 2000 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Co-operative Consumers' Federa ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]254ITR599(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. All these cases involve an identical dispute. At the instance of the Revenue, the question referred relates to the nature of receipts of subsidy granted by the Central Government to the assessed. The followingquestion which is common in all the references, except for the amount of subsidy granted, has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-'D' (in short 'the Tribunal') for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy granted by the Central Government to the assessed amounting to Rs. 25,000 in the assessment year 1972-73 is receipt of a casual and non-recurring nature as contemplated in section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act and not covered by clause (ii) of the proviso to section 10(3) of the Act and hence the said amount cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the ass...

Plastic Processors Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2000(72)ECC588; 2002(143)ELT521(Del)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. In these three writ petitions challenge is to the legality of circular dated 10th May, 2000 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. The same is purported to have issued to clarify doubt which has been raised regarding levy of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) on Domestic Tariff Area (in short DTA) sale of reprocessed plastic agglomerates/granules (reprocessed out of plastic scrap) by Export Oriented Units (in short EOU)/Export Processing Zone (in short EPZ) units. Doubts were entertained in respect of the Notification No. 5/98-CE., dated 2nd June, 1998, 5/99-CE., dated 28th February, 1999 and 6/2000-CE., dated 1st March, 2000. In Paragraph 3 of the circular it was inter alias stated as follows :'In so far as levy of additional duty of customs (CVD) on imports of reprocessed plastic materials viz., plastic granules/agglomerates, is concerned, condition (1) above will not be satisfied because the reprocessing has not been ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Co-operative Consumers Federat ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]114TAXMAN480(Delhi)

Pasayat, CJ. All these cases involve an identical dispute. At the instance of the revenue question referred relates to the nature of receipts of subsidy granted by the Central Government to the assessee. The following question which is common in all the references, except for the amount of subsidy granted, has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D', for opinion of this court :In Income Tax Reference No. 318 of 1979'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy granted by the Central Government to the assessed amounting to Rs. 25,000 in the assessment year 1972-73 is receipt of a casual and non-recurring nature as contemplated in section 10(3) of the Income Tax Act and not covered by clause (ii) of the proviso to section 10(3) of the Act and hence the said amount cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessed ?'...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Printers House (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]252ITR352(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two applications involve identical questions and are, thereforee, being disposed of by this common order. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A' (in short 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,000 is not disallowable as entertainment expenditure within the meaning of Section 37(2B) ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,835 is not disallowable as expenditure incurred in connection with a criminal proceeding ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the collaboration agreement dated June 9, 1961, the Tribunal is legally c...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. R.N. Malhotra

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 23.6.2000, passed by District Forum (North East) in Complaint Case No. 587/98 - entitled Sh. R.N. Malhotra v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The respondent Sh. R.N. Malhotra had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that he was the consumer in respect of electricity connection No. P. 506-156555, installed at his residence since November, 1987. The grievance of the respondent in the complaint, filed by him, was that the appellant was sending adhoc (Provisional) Bills without any meter reading and at times on fictitious meter readings from November, 1987 to April, 1997 and during the abovesaid period the respondent had received as many as 13 Bills on adhoc basis. The second ...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Gopi Ram

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 the 6th December, 1999, passed by District Forum (North-West) in Complaint Case No. 584/98 entitled Shri Gopi Ram v. The Executive Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board andOrs. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Gopi Ram had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act with the allegations that the meter installed at his premises bearing Electric Connection No. K. No. SB-505-139003-4102-DL, was not working properly as a result of which, he was getting inflated bills in respect of the abovesaid electricity connection for September, 1997; March, 1998; May, 1998; and June, 1998. It was stated in the complaint that the respondent had made an application for the replacement of meter on 24.6.1998 but the m...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Krishan Lal

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 6.10.1999, passed by District Forum No. IV (Nand Nagri) in Complaint Case No. 242/98 - entitled Sh. Krishan Lal v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Sh. Krishan Lal had filed a complaint before the District Forum averring that he was a consumer in respect of electricity connection bearing K. No. 601-135-615 which was sanctioned for domestic purposes. The grievance of the respondent in the complaint filed by him in nutshell was that the appellant Delhi Vidyut Board had levied misuse charges without serving a proper legal notice on the respondent. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to issue a revised bill adjusting therein the excessive payments made by the respondent to the appellant. 3. The cla...

Xerox Modicorp. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT165TriDel

1. The appellants imported what they described as "Xerox Document Work Centre 365c" and classified as an output unit of computer under Customs Tariff sub-heading (CTH) 8471.60 in their Bill of Entry dated 5-1-1999 filed for clearance of the goods at Customs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs assessed the Bill of Entry by classifying the goods under CTH 9009.21. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision. Hence the present appeal by the assessees.3. We note that the authorities below preferred to classify the goods under CTH 9009.21 by following Rule 3(c) of the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI). Both the lower authorities concurrently found that the imported item had printing, scanning, fax and copying functions incorporated in it. They, however, found none of these functions to be predominant over the others and, therefore, rejected the assessees' contention that the item was principally and essentially a printer. The lower appellate authority als...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Jct Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT166TriDel

1. The two issues that arise for determination in the above appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) are : (1) Admissibility of Clean How and Floron Gas used in airconditioners to remove fungus and unwanted deposits in airconditioners used to maintain the temperature in the Filament Yarn plant of the respondents, to the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (2) Admissibility of credit of Rs. 22,26,571 /- availed on triplicate copy of Bill of Entry endorsed by the importer in favour of the respondents.2. We have heard both the sides. The DR's contention is that credit on airconditioners is not admissible and therefore, credit on inputs used in the airconditioners is also not admissible. However, in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v.J.K. Synthetics reported in [1998 (98) E.L.T. 507] upholding the eligibility of Clean Flow to Modvat credit which is also applicable in the case o...

Girish Kumar Malik Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2000)(122)ELT827TriDel

1. The appellant herein who is the proprietor of M/s. Aerowisers, a Cargo Clearing Agency since 1993, is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo, New Delhi has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs upon him in terms of Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that he was concerned with the attempt by Shri Nipun Mehta to smuggle out foreign currency amounting to US $2,03,7007-illegally.2. We have heard Shri C. Hari Shankar, learned Advocate and Shri Mewa Singh, learned SDR.3. We find that the only evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority for the purpose of taking penal action against the appellant is the fact that he had accompanied Mr. Nipun Mehta to the office of M/s. Sunrise Freight Forwarders P. Ltd. who issued the airway bill relating to the seized goods on behalf of the carrier, M/s. Singapore Airlines and to the office of Singapore Airlines. The appellant's submission is that he knew Mr. Nipun Mehta well as he was also in the same busin...