Delhi Court August 2004 Judgments

Cit Vs. Delhi Tourism Transportation Development Corpn. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN496(Delhi)

This is a matter between two departments of the State/Union or Department of Government and a public sector undertaking. The Apex Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, CBDT : [2004]267ITR64(MP) , pointed out as under :'Undoubtedly, the right to enforce a right in a court of law cannot be effaced. However, it must be remembered that courts are overburdened with a large number of cases. The majority of such cases pertain to Government Departments and/or public sector undertakings. As is stated in Chief Conservator of Forests case : [2003]2SCR180 it was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or the Civil Procedure Code that two Departments of a State or Union of India and/or a Department of the Government and a public sector undertaking fight a litigation in a court of law. Such a course is detrimental to public interest as it entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. These are all limbs of the Government and must act in co-ordination and not confront...

Perfect Computer and Services Vs. Sqn. Ldr. B.M. Shukla

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. The present appeal has been directed against order dated 2.8.2000 passed by District Forum (Central), Delhi whereby the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses for deficiency in service inasmuch as it could not provide Pentium II processor to the respondent who purchased personal computer Pentium II for Rs. 18,000/- but the P.C. was not of the required specification and developed snags after two days as the same had been assembled by using sub-standard components. According to the appellant he had assured the respondent that he would replace the Celeron Processor 366 mhz alog with personal computer as requested by the respondent and when the respondent found that it was a slow processor, he requested for Pentium processor but the same could not be supplied by the appellant because of Parliament elections. 2. For providing P. II processor the appellant demanded Rs. 4,700/- more which was paid ...

Wig Bros. (Bande) Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)1SOT40(Delhi)

These are cross appeals preferred by the assessee and by the revenue against the order of the CIT (A) dated 5-5-1994 pertaining to assessment year 1991-92. They are clubbed together and are being disposed of by way of a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Brief facts are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of construction. The assessee claimed to have purchased shuttering material during the year amounting to Rs. 21,22,267 and claimed depreciation at the rate of 100 per cent on such material. The assessee claimed that it had given the entire material on hire to M/s. Wig Brothers (B&E) Delhi Area Project another sister concern in the similar line of business. The details in relation to the impugned shuttering material is as under:- The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation on the aforesaid material on noticing the following. That the assessee did not carry out any construction activity except maintenance work during the yea...

ito Vs. Super Chemicals Distributors

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)1SOT102(Delhi)

As these appeals belong to the same assessee, they are disposed of by this consolidated order dealing with each appeal separately.This is a departmental appeal against order dated 5-6-2000 of the Learned CIT (A)-X, New Delhi.The lst Ground, taken by,the department, is as under: "(1) That the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case by giving a relief of Rs. 17,012 under the head freight charges." The brief facts of the case, as they emerge from the order of the assessing officer, are that the assessee deals in chemicals. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 5,17,012 on account of the Freight paid by the assessee on three grounds ie., (i) The purchases of the assessee got reduced by 16.5% this year but the Freight Charges have increased by 26 per cent as compared to the last years, (ii) the Freight Charges have been paid to the sister-concern and (iii) the assessee has not paid the Freight Charges on competitive rates in the market by calling tenders.Before the L...