Delhi Court August 2008 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dcm Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN300(Delhi)

1. This appeal at the instance of the revenue pertains to the assessment year 1996-97. The issue involved in this appeal centres around the question of reopening of the assessment proceedings of the assessee in respect of the said assessment year.2. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and after an expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year in question, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section 147. The reasons indicated by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment had a reference to allotment and sale and purchase of certain shares of DCM Estate and Infrastructure Ltd. But, in the reasons recorded there is no allegation with regard to the purchase and sale of shares of DCM Estate & Infrastructure Ltd. (DEIL) by the assessee-company. The allegation only pertains to some of the promoters of the assessee-company and subsidiary companies/trusts. The Assessing Officer upon rea...

Sudatta Bhattacharjee Vs. Ardee Infrastructure Limited

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Aforesaid two appeals arise from the order dated 6th August, 2007 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant-M/s. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has been directed to pay Rs. 50,000 to the respondent-Mrs. Sudatta Bhattacharjee towards compensation for delayed delivery of the possession of a residential unit and Rs. 10,000 towards cost of litigation. 2. For the sake of clarity we will refer M/s. Ardee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as appellant and Mrs. Sudatta Bhattacharjee as respondent. 3. The appellant is aggrieved of the order itself whereas the respondent is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation as well as the non-registration of the flat in the name of the respondent. 4. Relevant facts as culled out from the order of the District Forum, in brief, are that the respondent booked a residential unit i.e. B-33 ground floor with the appellant on payment of Rs. 1,58,760 representing registration/ booking charges. The cost of the unit was fixed a...

Endolite India Limited Vs. Reena Aggarwal

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On having supplied a highly defective artificial limb known as ESK IP + system causing mental and physical discomfort and agony to the respondent, the appellant has been held guilty for supplying defective goods and also for deficiency in service in not providing repairs to the defective limb and directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, torture and mental and physical harassment and inconvenience besides refund of Rs. 1,75,235 towards cost of limb and Rs. 30,015 towards its repairs. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Relevant facts leading to the impugned order, in brief, are that left foot of respondent was amputated over the knee on 25.8.1998. She consulted number of doctors/organizations for fitment of artificial leg including M/s. Endolite India Ltd. through its Director Bdg. V.K. Bajaj. On their representation that the artificial leg provided by them were of highest quality and did not require r...

Symphony Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Northern Railway

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Vide impugned order dated 28th July 2006 passed by the District Forum the complaint of the appellant claiming cost of one of the packages that was booked in the luggage van of the respondent and was found missing, was dismissed on the ground that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is not available particularly when there are provisions of Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and further that it is only in the absence of entrustment of luggage that Railway Claims Tribunal Act has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute but in case the goods are entrusted to the Railway Authority the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the matter. 2. Complaint of the appellant, in brief, was that Mr. Umesh Mandal an employee of the appellant-M/s. Symphony Marketing Pvt. Ltd travelled from New Delhi to Patna and he was carrying with him the machine consisting of two packages i.e. two parts and booked...

Devender Raina Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. The following order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Sh. R.N. Poddarm, Member. 2. This appeal is directed against adjudication Order No.SDE(SKP)III 66. 2004 dated 9.3.2004 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant besides separate penalty imposed on noticee company and other co noticee director of said company for the reason of failure to realize and repatriate outstanding export products in contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) r/w section 68 of FER Act, 1973. This tribunal vide order dated 29.7.04 after hearing argument directed the appellant to deposit the penalty amount within 60 days. It is stated (Sic) the Bar that the said order has been complied with though belatedly. Heard Shri Amit Prasad, Ld. advocate appearing for appellant and Dr. Shamsuddin, DLA for the respondent. 3. The main crux of argument of Shri Amit Prasad, Ld. advocate is that at the relevant time, the appellant was neith...