Delhi Court February 2006 Judgments

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tourist Taxi Service

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. On account of the total loss by way of theft of the vehicle insured with the appellant, the District Forum has vide impugned order dated 16.11.2001 directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,42, 746 against the insured value of Rs. 3,30,000 along with interest @ 9% and Rs. 15,000 as cost as well as damages. 2. Through this appeal the impugned order has been mainly assailed on the ground that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the fact that the vehicle in question was of 1992 model and was being used as a Tourist Taxi and therefore the mileage was so high that its depreciated value was much higher than the normal passenger car in view of the enormity of wear and tear. 3. We have taken a consistent view that the market value has to be assessed by the Surveyor in such like cases by taking the insured value less the depreciated value depending upon the other clauses and factors. Car was of 1992 model and was insured for a period of one year valid from 1...

Silver Oak Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against the denial of Modvat credit of about Rs. 1.2 crores and imposition of penalty. The denial of credit has been done relying on Rule 7(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. We may read that provision : Rule 7(1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer on the basis of any of the following documents namely : (b) a supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from his factory or from his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by, or on behalf of, the said manufacturer or importer, in case additional amount of excise duties or additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, has been paid, except where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods o...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Dhanshree Agro Poly Products

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)10STR90

1. The revenue filed these applications for review of the final orders passed by the Tribunal. In the application, the Commissioner of Central Excise mentioned that in view of the order dt. 17-9-2004 of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, Hon'ble High Court the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be reviewed.2. We have gone through the order dt. 17-9-2004 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and from the order, we find that there is no such direction from the Hon'ble High Court. From the order, it is cleared that the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that there was no merit in the reference application filed by the revenue. The reference application was allowed to be withdrawn at the request of the Counsel appearing for revenue and while seeking permission to withdraw the application with liberty to approach the Tribunal.3. In the present application, the request of the revenue is to review the earlier order passed in favour of the respondent. We find that as per the provision of ...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99ITD666(Delhi)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 29-9-1994 pertaining to assessment year 1991 -92. The first ground raised by the revenue reads as follows:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in:- (i) deleting Rs. 1,16,803 out of total disallowance of Rs. 2,57,534 made by the Assessing Officer on account of gifts presented by the assessee company exceeding Rs. 200 each, under Rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,57,534 under Rule 6B, being the value of gifts given to dignitaries visiting the assessee's factory as well as other business associates. The CIT(A), following the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 611 : [1989] 47 Taxman 64 and the orders of his predecessors in the assessee's own case for the earlier years has partly deleted the addition on the ground t...

Goodwill India Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. ITA No. 2977/Del/02 is an appeal by the assessee and ITA No.3227/Del/02 is an appeal by the Revenue and both these appeals are directed against the order dated 7.5.02 of CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi relating to the assessment year 97-98. ITA No. 2912/Del/02 is an appeal by the assessee while 3228/Del/02 is an appeal by the Revenue and both these appeals are directed against order dated 6.5.02 of CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi. ITA No. 1712/Del/02 is a appeal against the order dated 19.2.02 of CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi relating to the assessment year 98-99. All these appeals were heard altogether and involve identical issued. They were heard altogether and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The only issue for consideration in the three appeals filed by the assessee is with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of lease equalization charges. The facts with regard to the lease equalization charges claimed as deduction by the assessee, which was disallowed by the Re...

Tech Books Electronics Services Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)100ITD125(Delhi)

1. These are two appeals by the same assessee arising out of separate orders of the learned CIT(A) for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02.As common grounds are involved in both these appeals and further as the learned CIT(A) has also followed his order for assessment year 2000-01 in the subsequent assessment year i.e., 2001-02, facts and circumstances for both the assessment years in question being also the same, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Salil Aggarwal and Shri Gautam Jain Advocates appeared for the assessee whereas Shri R.L.Meena, Sr. DR, represented the Revenue.3. In this appeal the assessee has taken various grounds to challenge the findings of learned CIT(A) to the effect that the assessee is not entitled for exemption under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act in respect of profits derived from 100 per cent Export Oriented Undertaking ("EOU" in sh...

Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Video Electronics Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)99ITD342(Delhi)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the revenue on 2-7-1999 against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 22-3-1999 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1995-96 and another appeal filed on 4-4-2000 against the order of the learned CIT (Appeals)-IH, New Delhi dated 14-1-2000 in the case of the assessee in relation to assessment order under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1996-97. As certain common facts and issues are involved in these two appeals, the same were argued together by the learned Counsel for the assessee and the learned D.R. We are deciding these two appeals together for convenience.2. The main dispute in these appeals, which is common for both the assessment years, relates to the addition of Rs. 25,28,784 and Rs. 32,73,184 made by the Assessing Officer respectively for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 on account of lease rent. Facts of the case leading to this dispute briefly...

Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Jt. Cit, Spl. Range 6

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)285ITR228(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A) dated 1st October, 2002.2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the assessee in the statement of facts filed before the ld. CIT(A) are as under: The appellant is a company jointly owned by the Government of India and Suzuki Motor Company, Japan and is engaged in the business of manufacture of motor vehicles, spare parts and components. For the previous year ended on 31^st March, 1994, relevant to assessment year under appeal the appellant filed its return declaring its total income of Rs. 36,73,38,670/-, which was later on revised to an income of Rs. 32,01,51,070/-. Assessment against the revised income had been completed at an income of Rs. 1,21,33,58,476/- by making several additions and disallowances. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) passed an order dated 11.7.1997 giving certain reliefs. The AO has passed an order under Section 250/143(3) on 10.9.1997 to give an appeal effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A) wher...

Ajay Sharma Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Delhi)1065

1. This appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the block assessment made under Section 158BC of the IT Act on 30th July, 2002. The assessee is a cricketer who represented India both in test cricket and one-day games. There was a search under Section 132 of the Act in his residential premises on 20th July, 2000, as part of the search on some prominent cricket players and individuals who were suspected to be involved in betting and match-fixing or were considered to be close associates of players indulging in these activities. On the basis of the materials collected during the search and on the basis of the CBI report dt. 30th Nov., 2000, regarding match-fixing allegations and the report dt. 24th Nov., 2000, of the Madhavan Commission, and also relying on the statements made by the assessee during and after the search, the AO completed the block assessment determining the total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 53,01,738. This figure included an addition of Rs. 23,33,00...

Survir Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketi ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(1)ARBLR435(Delhi); 128(2006)DLT289; 2006(87)DRJ547

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA No. 4915/1990 (under Section 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940)1. The petitioner, a limited company, stated to be engaged inter alias in the business of supplying rice to various State Governments by procuring it from surplus States like Punjab and Haryana. The petitioner is also a member of the Punjab Rice Millers Association. Respondent No. 1, a State Cooperative Marking Federation, is an instrumentality of the Government of Maharashtra, respondent No. 2, and acted at the relevant time as the agency of the State Government for purchase of food grains and other commodities and their distribution to consumers through fair price shops.2. In 1982-83 there was stated to be acute shortage of rice in State of Maharashtra and on 19.01.1983, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Federation for supply of 50,000 metric tonnes of Parimal rice of the 1982-83 crop season. The terms and conditions agreed to between the parties were reduced into writing which co...