Delhi Court February 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)303

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These two reference applications involve identical points for adjudication in relation to Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust, (hereinafter referred to as the assessed) for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. At the instance of Revenue, the following questions have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (in short, the Tribunal) 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Income-tax Act were not applicable to the assessed's case and thereby exempting the assessed from tax under S.11 of the Income tax Act in respect of the income arising to it from the shares and property donated by Sir Sobha Singh? 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 13(2)(h...

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Vs. Un ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Del)380; 2001(58)DRJ641

ORDERArun Kumar, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Income Tax (2nd Amendment) Act, 1998, Act No.11 of 1999. By amendment of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) the legislature has introduced the words 'agricultural produce grown by its members' in place of the words 'agricultural produce of its members'. The effect of the amendment is that the exemption is now confined to societies marketing agricultural produce grown by their members. 2. Under the provision as it stood before the amendment benefit of exemption was being enjoyed by the cooperative societies irrespective of the fact whether members were actual growers of the agricultural produce or they were trading in agricultural produce. This wide meaning was being given to the provision in view of interpretation by courts. In fact in its latest judgment in the Kerala State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. vs . CIT, : [1998]231ITR814(SC) ,...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sir Shri Ram Foundation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)353; (2001)167CTR(Del)349; [2001]250ITR55(Delhi)

ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. These references made by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, the Tribunal) involve identical points for adjudication in relation to Sir Shri Ram Foundation, hereinafter referred to as assessed for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1974-1974. Following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law to give a finding that the assessed was not covered by section 13(2)(h) of the Income-tax Act or any other provision of Section 13 and thereby allowing its claim for exemption from tax of its dividend income u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act.' 2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows: assessed is a public charitable trust which was originally registered as a society under the name 'Sri Sri Ram & Sons Charitable Trust Society' under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 7-5-1941. Name of the trust was cha...

Smt. Sangeeta Vs. Sh. Sanjay Bansal

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001IIIAD(Delhi)181; AIR2001Delhi267; 90(2001)DLT632; I(2001)DMC673; 2001(58)DRJ111

ORDERKhan, J.1. Parties were married on 6.5.1987. But later they fell out and Appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on 12.4.1989 on ground of cruelty. Along with she filed an application under Section 27 of HMA, claiming return of articles worth Rs.3,06,885/- which according to her jointly belonged to both the parties. Trial court passed order dated 29.8.1989 awarding her compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu thereof instead of Rs.3,06,885/-.2. Both sides filed appeals against this order. Appellant filed FAO 247/89 and respondent FAO 243/89. Both these appeals were disposed off by First Appellate Court by common order dated 12.5.1994 allowing respondent's FAO 247/89 and setting aside impugned order dated 29.8.1989 awarding Rs.50,000/- to appellant. While doing so, First Appellate Court found that trial court had presumed that disputed articles were in the custody of Respondent husband as its order did not indicate whether parties had led any evidence in the matter. It al...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Molu Ram JaIn and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002ACJ1008; 2001IVAD(Delhi)121; 91(2001)DLT123; 2001(59)DRJ228

ORDERM.S.A. Siddiqui, J. 1. The accident which gave rise to the claim for compensation by the respondents took place on 14th October, 1989. The deceased, namely, Narender Kumr Jain's legal heirs filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation. By the order dated 22nd November, 1988, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,16,000 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum directing the respondents Ram Chander, Mahan Singh Yadav and the appellant insurance company to satisfy the award. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant insurance company filed a memorandum of appeal accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condensation of forty days' delay in filing the appeal. By the order dated 20th April, 1989, the learned Single Judge rejected the said application and dismissed the appeal as barred by time. Hence this appeal.2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that delay in filing the ap...

North Delhi Cleaning Works Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited.

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 8.11.2000, passed by District Forum No. III, in Complaint Case No. 1111/1999 entitled M/s. North Delhi Cleaning Works v. United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant is a sole proprietary concern and Shri Sanjay Suri is the sole proprietor of the appellant. The appellant is engaged in the business of dry cleaning the clothes and is carrying on its business at M-169 and 199, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The appellant, through its sole proprietor, Mr. Sanjay Suri, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had taken a Fire Insurance Policy from the respondent, United India Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was vali...

M/S. Rosa Sugar Works Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT89TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Rosa Sugar Works the issue involved is whether the Capital goods Credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules is available in respect of plates, bars and rodes falling under Chapter 72 of the Tariff.2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No. A/894/2000-NB(DB) dated 12.10.2000 has allowed the Capital goods Credit on the impugned goods.He, further, mentioned that again the Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/277/2000-NB dated 29.12.99 had allowed the Capital goods Credit to them. In addition, reliance was also placed by him in the case of J.K.Cement Works vs. CCE, Jaipur,CCE, Jaipur vs.J.K. Cement Works, 3. Countering the submissions, Shri M.D. Singh, learned SDR, submitted that these items were used by the Appellants for repairing the damaged parts of machinery, storage tank, boilers, etc. and as such these were not components/spare parts and accessories of Sugar Mill machiner: that ...

M/S. Unisys Vs. Cce, Chandigarh-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In this appeal filed by M/s Unisys, the matter relates to the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.1993. The appellants were purchasing certain parts from the customers to whom the final products which were referred to as MDF Cable Assembly were being supplied. The benefit of small scale exemption was disallowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that the cable assembly was bearing the brand name of M/s Fujitsu India Telecom Ltd., Mohali. M/s Fujitsu were using the cable assembly in the organisation of Digital Switching System. The Commissioner of Central Excise also held that the extended period of limitation was invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. Shri Ashok Dhingra, consultant, appearing for the appellants, submitted that their case was fully covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Prakash Industries vs CCE, Bhubaneshwar, 2000 (119) ELT 30 ...

M/S. Ruchi Organics Ltd. Vs. Cce Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

The Final Order No.A/194/99-NB (SM) dt 12.3.99 is the subject matter of the present ROM petition. The operative dpart of this order is extracted below: "7. I have considered the submissions. I agree with the submissions of Ld. JDR that the issue involved in this case is not about giving retrospective effect to the notification No. 11/95 dated 16.3.95 but availability of modvat credit lying unutilised with the appellants after they had ceased to operate under modvat scheme. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly relied on Rule 57 C which clearly lays down that where final products do not suffer duty, modvat credit cannot be availed on the inputs used in those final products. 8. In the light of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and I uphold the same. The appeal is, as a result, rejected." 2. Shri Surinder Mishra, Advocate assisted by Shri Anurag Mishra, Advocate appearing for the appellants stated that actually the above extracted findings in ...

Cce, Jaipur Vs. M/S. Birla Jute and Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. In the impugned order Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had given the benefit of Modvat credit on Pollution Control Equipment by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IFFCO vs CCE, Ahmedabad and 2. Being aggrieved by this order, Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that as per defination of capital goods under Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 44, the credit was admissible on the capital goods which were used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product or on the capital goods mentioned in the explanation 1(d) of Rule 57Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 44 during the relevant time.3. Arguing the case for Revenue Shri S.C.Pushkarna, Ld. DR submits that Pollution Control Equipment and Cooling Equipment were neither used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product nor were covered und...