Delhi Court July 2004 Judgments

Whirlpool India Holdings Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)1SOT165(Delhi)

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A) relating to assessment year 2000-01. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is 100% owned subsidiary company of Whirlpool Corparation, USA. The appellant company was incorporated in the USA as a special purpose vehicle to facilitate safeguarding of investments made by Whirlpool in India. The appellant company (WHIL) has also opened a Branch Office in New Delhi. In the return of income filed by the appellant it was submitted that its main activity in India is to watch and safeguard the interest of holding company in India. The expenses of the Indian branch are met from the funds received from its head office. There is another company named as Whirlpool of India Limited (WIL) which is a company incorporated in India and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of consumer durable appliances. In the computation of total income filed along with the return of income a note has been given wherein it i...

Dr. Rajesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Medical Council of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 113(2004)DLT347

ORDERSanjay Kishan Kaul, J. WP(C) 4937 of 2003:1. Rule.Learned Counsel for the respondent accepts notice of rule.2. The matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of learned Counsels for the parties.3. The petitioners are medical students who completed MBBS course of 5 1/2 years from recognised institute in Taskent, USSR in 1998. The petitioners were granted provisional registration by the State Medical Council of Jammu and Kashmir and completed the internship period of 12 months under the same.4. The controversy arose on account of the fact that similarly placed other students had applied to Medical Council of India, the respondents herein, who were not given provisional registration, on the ground that they had completed MBBS course only in 5 1/2 years whereas the requirement was to spend 6 years in the medical course.5. The matter in controversy went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2779/2000 decided on 8.3.2002. The Supreme Court granted...

Bhoruka Steel Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financia ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]59SCL643(Delhi)

ORDER1. Since at the relevant time, Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'the AAIFR'), was not functional order, dated 7 January 2004, passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short 'the BIFR') was challenged by means of this writ petition. Taking note of the report of the operating agency (IDBI), by the impugned order, the BIFR has declared the scheme, sanctioned in terms of AAIFR's order dated 31 August 2001 as failed. As a consequence thereof certain directions were issued to the operating agency, including the issuance of an advertisement for change of management of the company.2. While issuing notices to the respondents, operation of the impugned order was stayed on 4 February 2004. When the matter came up for consideration, it was stated on behalf of the company that except for the payments deferred under the sanctioned scheme, dues of all the financial institutions and banks have been paid and the scheme has been ...

Asian Diesel Corporation Vs. Vinu Baig

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.6.2004 passed by District Forum (East) whereby complaint of the respondent seeking compensation for deficiency in service in respect of a Diesel Generator Set (in short D.G. Set) was allowed with following directions to the appellant: (i) To refund the entire sale price i.e., 2,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.3.2003 (date of filing complaint) till realisation under Section 14(1)(c) of the C.P. Act. (ii) To remove the Gen. Set from the premises of the complainant. (iii) Pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rs. two thousand five hundred) as compensation and pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant. 2. The appellant is an agent of M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engine Limited. The complainant purchased 20 KVA sound attenuated DG set from the appellant after informing the appellant about the requirement of a Gen. Set of 3 units of 1.5. ton AC. The appellant assured its capaci...

Amrit Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC394Tri(Delhi)

1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner, who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 6,59,137.00 with penalty of equal amount payable with interest against the appellants. The duty has been confirmed against the appellants for having been disposed 18958 crates and 05 bottles of manufactured aerated water without their accountal in RG-1 and without payment of duty, during the period August, 1995 to May, 2000, after rejecting plea that the disposed aerated water did not qualify the test with regard to contamination, under/over filling and badly crowned bottles. They also disposed of 615 crates and 11 bottles of samples required for laboratory test without proper accountal and without payment of duty.2. The Id. Counsel has contended that the disposed aerated water was not marketable and as such did not qualify as 'goods' for the purpose of ...

Modipon Fibre Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC585

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, allowing the refund claim of the appellants, but directing its deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Act, the issue relates to the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment. By applying this principle, the authorities below have directed the deposit of refund claim of the appellants of Rs. 4,59,974/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the clearances were made before the issuance of Notification No. 161/90, dated 15-12-90 enhancing duty on MMF yarn from Rs. 50/- per Kg. to Rs. 63/- per Kg.per yarn, and on nylon filament yarn and polyester filament yarn from Rs. 55/- per kg. to Rs. 70/-per kg., the question of passing of incidence of duty to the ultimate customers and the applicability of principle of unjust enrichment did not arise. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be struck down. On the other hand, the ...

Arham Spinning Mills and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC149

1. These are three applications by M/s. Arham Spinning Mills & Ors., for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 64,60,952/- and equal amount of penalty on the firm and penalty of Rs. 5/- lakh each on Shri V.K. Kad, Vice President, and Shri D.S. Virdi, General Manager.2. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Advocate, at the outset, mentioned that if at all the duty liability is held against them, it should not be more than Rs. 30/- lakh and not Rs. 64,60,952/- as confirmed by the Commissioner; that the duty amount to Rs. 17,07,337/- has been confirmed on the ground that quantum of freight and insurance had not been added in the assessable value on the ground that the insurance of the goods was taken by the appellants; that this demand is not sustainable at all as the invoices were issued by the applicants from the factory in the name of respective consignees. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (84) ECC 225 (SC): 2002 (14...

Sumitomo Corpn. India (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)1SOT91(Delhi)

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of learned CIT (A) dated 12-9-2003 relating to the assessment year 2000-01.2. Ground Nos. 1 to 6 relate to confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 46,29,600 incurred on software and claimed as a revenue expenditure by the CIT (A). The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: "1. That the learned CIT (A)-XII has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of an expenditure of Rs. 46,29,600 incurred on software and claimed as a revenue expenditure.2. That the learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the appellant on the acquisition of accounting systems package/module is in the nature of capital expenditure disregarding the aforesaid expenditurehad not been incurred in acquiring any capital asset or further also such an expenditure had not been incurred in capital fielearned 3. That the learned CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in holding t...

Mcd Vs. Harish Chander and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT481

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Karkardooma in RCA No. 62/1997, whereby the learned Tribunal while appreciating the appeal from the judgment and order dated 5.8.1995 of the Rent Control Tribunal declining eviction on the ground of Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act) has held that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are landlords and are entitled to receive rent. The Tribunal has, thereforee, passed an order giving benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act to the tenant.2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the Additional Rent Controller are as follows:'.......the respondent No. 1 is the tenant in respect of one room, one kitchen on the ground floor, a main in between the ground floor in the property bearing No. E-8A/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter known as the suit premises) at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) DRC...

V.S. Kapoor Vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 27.6.2000 passed by the District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 2740/1999-entitled Shri V.S. Kapoor v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another. 2. Short question involved for determination in this appeal is as to whether the acceptance of amount against the claim of medical insurance policy without raising protest operates estoppel or not. 3. It is the admitted case that the appellant and the family members obtained insurance policy for the period 20.9.1996 to 19.9.1997 after paying premium of Rs. 4,630/- under the said policy, which was floated under the new scheme. The appellant was entitled to claim actual medical expenses incurred subject to the maximum limit prescribed in the policy. There is no dispute that the old scheme where the insured was not entitled to claim actual medical expenses came to an end on 31.8.1996 and was replaced by a new scheme w.e...