Delhi Court March 2003 Judgments

Mamta Marajan and ors Vs. Ito

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Del)120

ORDERS.K. Yadav, J.M.:These appeals are preferred on behalf of the assessed against different orders of Commissioner (Appeals) passed in their respective cases for the assessment year 1998-99. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Though the assessed raised various grounds of appeal but all grounds relate to the chargeability of capital gain accrued on sale of their immovable property.2. The facts in nutshell borne out from the record are that during the year under appeal, assessed sold a plot no. 171 pocket 4 & 5 sector 23, Rohini for Rs. 1,82,500. This property was owned by assessed's along with Smt. Sangita Mahajan. Since the individual assessed had 1/4th share in this property it declared capital gain of Rs. 2,500. The assessing officer after making market enquiries referred the case to the valuation officer under section 55A of the Act, and the val...

Deputy Cit Vs. Tcil Bellsouth Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)89TTJ(Del)851

ORDERMY. Mayar, A.M.:These are five appeals by revenue against the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30-3-1995 and 27-3-1998, relating to the assessment years 1990-91 to 1991-92 and 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1995-96, respectively. Similar grounds are involved in all the appeals i.e., with regard to the allowance of expenditure incurred on development of software package under section 35 and 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Cross-objections have been filed by the assessed in the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1995-96 raising alternative contentions in the event that the revenue's appeals succeed.3. The assessed- company is engaged in the business of development of software and export of software services. The assessed is a joint venture company whose principal shareholding is as under(i)Telecommunications Consultants India ITD.40% (a Govt of India undertaking) (ii)Bellsouth International40% (an American Telecom Co.) (iii)SBI Capital Market11 %(iv)DSS Enterprises (P) ITD.9% 100%4...

Coca-cola Export Corporation Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Del)148

ORDERRam baradur, J.M..This appeal by the assessed/appellant arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI, New Delhi, dated 13-8-1999, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The relevant grounds of appeal are reproduced below :'The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in computing the total income at Rs. 1,35,04,753 as against the returned loss of Rs. 46,03,218. The appellant hereby challenges the correctness and validity of each and every disallowance of deduction of expenditure or trading liability and denial of any allowance and relief by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI converting the returned loss of Rs. 46,03,218 into a profit of Rs. 1,35,04,753.1.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing Rs. 5,57,000 out of head office expenses of Rs. 10,34,501 as he did not differentiate the facts of this year but adopted the conclusions reached in prior years' assessments.1.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the assessing officer that other income' comprised of d...

Cit Vs. A. R. J. Security Printers

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN297(Delhi)

D.K. Jain, J.These three appeals, by the revenue, under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 2062/Del/96, 3676 & 3122/Del/97 and 3157/Del/99 pertaining to assessment years 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1996-97 respectively.2. Since a common issue is involved in all the three appeals, these are being disposed of by this order.3. The issue involved in the appeals is as to whether the assessed, engaged in the business of printing of lottery tickets, can be said to be an industrial undertaking engaged in the manufacture or production of articles or things and, thereforee, entitled to deduction under section 80-I of the Act.4. Incidentally, in none of the assessment orders or in the order of the Tribunal we find any discussion on the issue. The assessing officers merely note that the claim preferred by the a...

Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Naresh Kumar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 28.9.2001 passed by District Forum (North East), in Complaint Case No. 333/2000 - entitled Shri Naresh Kumar v. Delhi Vidyut Board. 2. The relevant facts, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent Shri Naresh Kumar had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum averring therein that the premises No. 189/2-A, Main Durga Lane, Maujpur, Delhi was having two electric connections bearing No. YV 612 1408219 sanctioned in the name of his brother Shri Dinesh Kumar for domestic purpose and connection No. YV OOS 0053755 sanctioned in the name of Khazan Singh Chauhan, also sanctioned for domestic purpose. The respondent had purchased the above said premises from Shri Khazan Singh Chauhan in the year 1978 and at the time of purchase misuse was being levied on the connection No. YV OOS 0053...

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ram Gulati

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing the order dated 27.9.2000 of District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. 1898/1999 entitled Shri Ram Gulati v. Delhi Development Authority. 2. The brief facts, necessary for deciding the instant appeal, are that the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum averring therein that he had applied for MIG flat in 1978 and had accordingly been allotted Flat No. 527 in Pocket 8, Rohini, Delhi on the top floor on 23.11.1987. An allotment-cum-demand letter dated 23.11.1987-27.11.1987 was issued to him, wherein the total cost of the said flat was reflected as Rs. 1,27,500/- and the respondent accordingly made the payment of the initial deposit, as well as one instalment. Thereafter, the respondent applied for change of floor from top floor to ground floor on 20.12.1987 on account ...

Gulshan Bajwa Vs. Lokpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd.

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. By this order, we will be disposing of two applications, filed by the applicant, dated 4.4.2002 and 8.10.2002 for modification and execution of order dated 21.6.1995, respectively. 2. The relevant facts, in brief are, that the applicant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the District Forum-I, Tis Hazari, Delhi being Complaint Case No. 2033/1993-entitled Shri Gulshan Singh Bajwa v. M/s. Lokpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. and Ors., for the redressal of his grievances relating to the purchase of a plot bearing No. C-55, measuring 272 sq. yds., from the respondent M/s. Lokpriya Sehkari Avas Samity Ltd. The said complaint was dismissed vide order of the learned District Forum dated 25.4.1994 on the ground that since the applicant had not complied with the terms of the agreement executed by him with the respondent Samity and had refused to pay the development charges, the terminatio...

Magnum Automotive Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(155)ELT316TriDel

1. The issue involved in these 3 appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No. 13/2001, dated 24-12-2001, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, is whether the Appellants M/s. Magnam Automotive Industries are using the brand name of another person and consequently not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE., dated 28-2-93 and whether excisable goods were cleared by them clandestinely without payment of duty.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellant-company manufacture various automotive products, meant for four wheelers and two wheelers; that the products manufactured by them are brake shoes, Clutch plates, Disk plate pads, and Clutch weights; that they are marketing the products under their brand name 'Magnum' and they are putting of the particular logo on the casting only for the purpose of identification of the brake shoes since brake shoes, for Hero Honda Mobike and Kinetic Honda Scooter and also TVS Mobike, Kavasaki Baja...

AldowIn Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC420Tri(Delhi)

1. In these 4 appeals, arising out of a common Order-in-Original No.27/2001 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, the issue involved is whether the panels of Aluminium Glass Curtain Wall emerge on account of manufacturing activity, and if so, who are the manufacturer, whether M/s. Aldowin, Appellant No. 1 or M/s. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd. (BH& EL), Appellants No. 2.2. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s. BH & EL were engaged in the construction of a 5 Star Hotel at Chennai; that for installing facade of glass curtain, they imported glass Sheets of specific sizes exactly required as per design and the opening of the facade and purchased locally aluminium frames in dismantled condition after paying Central Excise duty; that the silicon sealant and other materials were also bought locally; that they entered into a labour contract with M/s. Aldowin and Blue Chip Consultants for providing labour for the purpose of assembling panels into fra...

Bhupendra Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT341TriDel

1. This is an application filed by M/s. Bhupendra Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order No.186/2002-B, dated 14-5-2002 [2002 (143) E.L.T. 189 (T)].2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that in the Final Order of the Tribunal some relevant facts and documents which were submitted in the appeal and also in the written submissions do not find mention at all which is a mistake; that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Standard Radiators Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) that the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and, therefore, it must discuss the facts in some detail and not cursorily. The facts and documents according to the application which do not find mention in the Final Order are as under: (1) During the entire period, no sample was ever drawn by the Department from the inputs received by the applicants in the manufacture of steel ingots, etc. (2) No seizure or any physical verification of any of the input...