Delhi Court May 2001 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C.J. International Hotels Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 20th Dec., 1994, of CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi, It pertains to the asst. yr.1989-90. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred in directing to allow licence fee of Rs. 2-68 crores as deduction under Section 43B of the IT Act on the plea that the assessee maintains mercantile system of accounting and the liability of the licence fee was duly reflected in its account." 3.1 The learned Departmental Representative places reliance on the assessment order. Our attention was invited to page 3 of the same on the basis of which it was submitted by him that although the assessee is claiming the expenses of MCD licence fee, no actual payment of the said fee has been made to the MCD. Our attention was also invited to the provisions of the Act on the basis of which the submission was that "fee" has specially been included by the Finance Act, 1988, w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Accordingly, it was submitted ...

Shri Anil Kumar and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001VAD(Delhi)1061; 92(2001)DLT209; 2001(60)DRJ470

ORDERManmohan Sarin, J.Rule.With the consent of the parties the application and writ petition are taken up for disposal.1. Petitioners claim to be regular Tehbazari holders, having their sites near Ritz Cinema, Kashmere Gate. Petitioners' shops are stated to have been demolished and they were issued letters of allotment of alternate sites at Hemilton Road. The sites near the Ritz Cinema were demolished to make the land available for metro Rail. Petitioners' grievance is that they have not been given possession of the sites at Hamilton Road. Directions are sought for possession being given of the sites at Hamilton Road. Directions are also sought for payment of compensation and damages. Further direction is sought to the respondent to give allotment to six persons at site of CPO Building, from where they were removed. Directions are also sought to allot alternate site to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 10 mentioned in para 7 at Gokhale Market.2. The petitioner and other applicants claim to be ...

M/S. Hygienic Research Institute Vs. Shri Shobhan Lal JaIn and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT209; 2001(59)DRJ834

ORDERA.K. Sikri, J.1. This Suit is filed by the plaintiff for passing a decree of permanent injunction, copyright infringement, passing off, damages and delivery-up. As per the averments made in the plant, the Plaintiff has a firm registered under Indian Partnership Act having its Office at Bombay and branch office at Delhi. Mr. Subhash C. Nishat is one of the partners of the plaintiff-firm who has been authorised to institute the present Suit. The plaintiff carries on business of manufacturing and marketing of cosmetics including hair care preparations and hair dye. One of its produce is SUPERVASMOL 33, hairdye. It is averred in the plaint that in the year 1978, the plaintiff adopted a new distinctive label and carton for its product SUPER VASMOL 33. The said product has since then continuously been sold in a peacock blue carton with a picture of smiling man in white colour on one side and a woman with open hair on the other side. The Super Vasmol 33 appears in English and Hindi insid...

Shri Rakesh Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2002]110CompCas624(Delhi)

ORDERDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. As the facts and the issues involved are similar in nature I proceed to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment/order.2. The petitioner herein is a Fellow Member of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India. He was appointed as Cost Auditor of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2 for the periods 1995-96 and even thereafter. The respondent No. 3 by a letter dated 15.12.1999 submitted the name of the petitioner for appointment as Cost Auditor of respondent No. 3 in the prescribed form for approval of the Central Government in terms of section 233B of the Companies Act. The respondents No. 1 & 2 however, by an order dated 4.4.2000 informed the respondent No. 3 that the appointment of petitioner as Cost Auditor could not be approved. The respondent No. 3 thereforee, was called upon to submit a fresh proposal proposing the name of some other Cost Auditor in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the pres...

Bawa Shiv Charan Singh Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2001]251ITR41(Delhi)

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessed, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of this court under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi :'1. Whether, the Tribunal was right on facts and in law in determining the taxable gift at Rs. 1,70,286 against Rs. 1,20,286 returned by the assessed ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that as on December 1, 1972, when the sum was gifted there was a right of allotment in existence which also stood transferred along with the gift on December 1, 1972 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1973-74 for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1973.3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :One Shri Satish Gujral had booked office accommodation, measuring 2,100 sq. ft. on the seventh floor of the multi-storeyed building known as 'Kanchanjunga' at 18, ...

Dy. Cit Vs. C.J. International Hotels Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Del)285

ORDERSmt. Diva Singh, J.M.This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 20-12-1994, of Commissioner (Appeals)-XV, New Delhi, It pertains to the assessment year 1989-90.2. The revenue has raised the following ground before us :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in directing to allow license fee of Rs. 2.68 crores as deduction under section 43B of the Income Tax Act on the plea that the assessed maintains mercantile system of accounting and the liability of the license fee was duly reflected in its account.'3.1 The learned Departmental Representative places reliance on the assessment order. Our attention was invited to page 3 of the same on the basis of which it was submitted by him that although the assessed is claiming the expenses of MCD license fee, no actual payment of the said fee has been made to the MCD. Our attention was also invited to the provisions of the Act on the basis of which the submission wa...

Jasvinder Kaur Vs. Delhi Financial Corporation

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, in her capacity as proprietor of Fine Art Printers and STD Centre, has filed the present complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring that the complainant had applied to the opposite party for a loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- under the Mahila Utmani Nidhi, a scheme floated by the opposite party, for the purchase of a computer with printer, a Photostat Machine and STD Machine for business purposes so as to earn her livelihood. The grievance of the complainant in the present complaint in nutshell is that though the complainant has completed all the formalities, as required by the opposite party but the opposite party is not releasing the loan amount. It has been prayed by the complainant that the opposite party be directed to release the loan amount. The complainant has also claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the loss suffered by her besides the cost of litigation. 2. We h...

Services Ltd. and Another Vs. Dhanwanti

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. By this common order, we shall dispose of the above mentioned 60 appeals as points of facts and law involved in all these cases are identical. 2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 6.1.2000, passed by South District Forum (District Forum-II) in Complaint Case No. 928/1999 - entitled Dhanwanti v. Trans Continental Leasing and Financial Services and Trans Continental Leasing and Properties (P) Limited, and 59 other complaint cases as detailed in the impugned order. The appellants were directed to refund back the amount deposited by the respondents (both in case of fixed deposit cases as well as Agro Unit cases) with interest at the agreed rate of 15% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of maturity in respect of FDRs and from the date of payment to appellants by respondents till one year from that date in case of Agro Units and further interest @ 18% per annum from the cut off dates as mentioned in the impugned order till the date of ...

U.S. Awasthy Vs. M/S. Gulf Air and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.P. Saberwal, Member: 1. Com-plainant Shri V.S. Awasthi has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter briefly referred as the Act). Complainant is the Managing Director/Chief Executive of a Fertilizer Manufacturing Organization. That respondents are a well advertised International Airlines claiming to provide very comfortable and a trouble free journey. It is stated that that taken in by the advertisements and tall claims made by opposite party - Gulf Airlines, complainant purchased Business Class air ticket for the sector Delhi-Doha-Bahrain-Istanbul-Dubai-Delhi for his journey commencing on 7.5.1994 and ending on the 14.5.1994. The said ticket dated 4.5.1994 bears conjunction ticket Nos. 0722404122331/32. That for the Bahrain-Istanbul-Sector of the journey on 8.5.1994, complainant was issued Boarding Pass bearing Seat No. 07A in flight No. GF-0041. Complainant boarded the aircraft and occupied the designated seat. To his shock and ...

M/S Ispat Structurals (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce, Chandigarh

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)(150)ELT579TriDel

1. This stay application arises out of appeal no. E/713/2001-NB filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 29.12.2001 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2 lakh.2. The appellants wee engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel products and were paying duty under the compounded levy scheme since 1.11.1997 in terms of Section 3-A of the Central Excises Act, 1944.They, however, applied for switching over from compounded levy to modvat scheme. On visit by the Central Excise Officers, it was found the 'D' parameter of the mill had been changed from the declared 409mm to 430 mm. On verification of the stock of goods, the Central Excise Officers further found shortage of 147.694 MT and 13.935 MT of finished goods and raw material respectively. A penalty of Rs 2 lakh had been imposed on them as they contravened the provisions of Rule 4(2) of Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills (HRSM) Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 under which the ...