Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2021 2021 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 1346 Records

• 2021 (1) TMI 1128
  

  Condonation of delay of 545 qua the order in Writ Appeal - Writ Appeal itself was preferred after a delay of 783 days - proper explanation for delay not provided - certificate cases - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the State Government has not even taken the trouble of citing any reason or excuse nor any dates given in respect of the period for which condonation is sought. The objective of such an exercise has also been elucidated by us in the aforesaid judgment where we have categorized such cases as “certificate cases” - The object of such cases appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say nothing could done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is mere completion of formality to give a quietus to the litigation and save the skin of the officers who may be at fault by not taking action in prescribed time. If the state government feels that they have suffered losses, then it must fix responsibility on concerned officers for their inaction but that ironically never happens. These matters are preferred on a presumption as if this Court will condone the delay in every case, if the State Government is able to say something on merits.

  SLP dismissed as time barred.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1127
  

  Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 14A - selection of the case for limited scrutiny - HELD THAT:- PCIT could not have exercised his revisional jurisdiction on the issue on which he found fault with the action/omission on the part of AO because in the first place the AO could not have been faulted for not conducting any enquiry on the issue of Section 14A of the Act in respect of exempt income, since the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny only for limited purpose under CASS and the issue of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of exempt income was not the reason for selection of the case for limited scrutiny.

  Therefore, as per the CBDT circular (supra) the AO could not have initiated enquiry on the issue of section 14A of the Act and it is settled that CBDT circulars are binding on income tax authorities. Therefore in such a scenario, the Ld. PCIT could not have invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act because he could not have held the AO’s order to be erroneous because the AO was justified in not enquiring in to the issue of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of exempt income, since the AO has gone as per the dictum of CBDT circular on the subject. Therefore, the AO’s action/ omission of not looking into the issue of 14A of the Act cannot be a ground for the Ld. PCIT to exercise his jurisdiction since he cannot hold the AO’s omission to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue and the impugned action of Ld. PCIT is akin to do indirectly what the AO could not have done directly.

  PCIT has ventured to exercise his revisional jurisdiction by issuing SCN without even satisfying the condition precedent to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 - Therefore the SCN itself is bad in law and therefore it is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1126
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - whether documents furnished by the Petitioner that an assessment order under Section 143(3)? - HELD THAT:- The special leave petition is dismissed. We have not entered into the merits of the questions involve in this petition.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1125
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the Corporate Debtor has availed various financial facilities from the Financial Creditor and its former associate Banks, now merged into the SBI. Having availed such financial facilities from public sector banks, the Corporate Debtor cannot avoid repayment merely relying on technicalities. While harping on the provisions of Limitation Act, the Corporate Debtor itself has filed Counter only on 27.02.2020, in a petition filed on 06.09.2019. Time for filing Counter was sought on different occasions, viz. 05.12.2019, 23.01.2020 and 07.02.2020.

  Apart from the technical issues raised, the Corporate Debtor did not dispute existence of debt and default, albeit it may differ dates of default and so on. Public money cannot be squandered away by the Corporate Debtor by finding loopholes.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the OTS proposal was also submitted by the Corporate Debtor and the Financial Creditors have met on 07.02.2020 to discuss about such OTS proposal. The above correspondence and the decrees passed by the DRT in the instant case amply prove that there is financial debt which was due. Thus, by accepting liability vide their letter dated 29.01.2020, agreeing to repay the debt, the Corporate Debtor now cannot take a stand that the debt is barred by limitation. Acknowledgement of debt and agreeing to repay the same amounts to liability and it automatically extends the limitation period.

  It is not in dispute that the Financial Creditor disbursed various types of loans from time to time and there is default. Other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Corporate Debtor cannot be entertained since the Financial Creditor is able to establish the debt and default. Therefore, the petition is to be admitted against the Corporate Debtor. After going through the documents filed by the petitioner we are of the view that the petition is liable to be admitted against the Corporate Debtor. The petition is accordingly admitted.

  Petition admitted - moratorium declared.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1124
  

  Recovery proceedings - Challenge order rejecting the application of the petitioner for complete stay of demand arising out of the order passed by the assessing officer under section 115Q read with section 115O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18 till disposal of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - interim protection granted to petitioner - HELD THAT:- Tribunal itself has decided to hear the appeal out of turn, the hearing should be expedited. Further, we feel that if the assessing officer initiates any recovery measure, he should give at least two weeks' prior notice to the petitioner to avail its legal remedy.

  We issue the following directions:

  (i) Let the Tribunal decide the appeal of the petitioner within three months from today;

  (ii) If the assessing officer resorts to any coercive measure for recovery of dues in the meanwhile, he shall give at least two weeks' prior notice to the petitioner to avail its legal remedy;

  (iii) All contentions are kept open.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1123
  

  Claim for compensation on death of dependency - Re-computation is sought of compensation for loss of dependency - HELD THAT:- The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women adopted General Recommendation No. 17 on the "Measurement and quantification of the unremunerated domestic activities of women and their recognition in the gross national product' in 1991. The General Recommendation affirmed that "the measurement and quantification of the unremunerated domestic activities of women, which contribute to development in each country, will help to reveal the de facto economic role of women" - It is worth noting that the above General Recommendation is passed in furtherance of Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which relates to ending discrimination against women in the field of employment, a Convention that India has ratified.

  The issue of fixing notional income for a homemaker, therefore, serves extremely important functions. It is a recognition of the multitude of women who are engaged in this activity, whether by choice or as a result of social/cultural norms - Returning to the question of how such notional income of a homemaker is to be calculated, there can be no fixed approach.

  Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of law - Taking into account the gendered nature of housework, with an overwhelming percentage of women being engaged in the same as compared to men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker attains special significance. It becomes a recognition of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in furtherance of our nation's international law obligations and our constitutional vision of social equality and ensuring dignity to all - The granting of future prospects, on the notional income calculated in such cases, is a component of just compensation.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1122
  

  Approval of scheme of Amalgamation - seeking dispensation of meetings of shareholders and creditors of Rangoli Creation Private Limited (Transferor Company) with Rangoli Sarees (Transferee Company) Limited - HELD THAT:- Necessary directions issued regarding issuance of various notices - application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1121
  

  Doctrine of separability of an arbitration agreement from the underlying substantive contract in which it is embedded - validity of arbitration agreement if the underlying contract was not stamped as per the relevant Stamp Act - fraudulent invocation of the bank guarantee furnished under the substantive contract - arbitral dispute or not.

  HELD THAT:- It is deemed appropriate to refer the following issue, to be authoritatively settled by a Constitution bench of five judges of this Court:

  Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to Stamp Duty Under Section 3 read with the Schedule to the Act, would also render the arbitration agreement contained in such an instrument, which is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, as being non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid, pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract/instrument?

  The Registry may place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders/directions.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1120
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - time limitation - account of Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA - whether appeal was barred by limitation as default occurred in the year 2013? - HELD THAT:- The account of Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 17thJune, 2013. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was triggered by the Financial Creditor by filing application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I&B Code) on 1st April, 2019. It is by now well settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements from the Hon’ble Apex Court as also by this Appellate Tribunal that the application under Section 7 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act providing for limitation period of three years which has to be reckoned from the date of default viz. the date on which the Account of Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA.

  The impugned order admitting application under Section 7 filed by Respondent No.1- (Financial Creditor) in terms of the impugned order dated 4th February, 2020 cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1119
  

  Depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) in respect of its “right to collect toll” - whether or not the assessee’s claim for depreciation on “license to collect toll”, an intangible asset, falls within the scope of Sec.32(1)(ii) ? - assessee’s stand qua its claim is that it has been holding the concessionare rights in the nature of license to collect road toll of an intangible asset u/s 32(1) - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the issue as to whether an Infrastructure Development company that had constructed a road on build, operate and transfer (BOT) basis on the land owned by the Central Government would be eligible for claim of depreciation in respect of its intangible rights i.e “right to collect toll” under Sec. 32(1)(ii) - See Progressive Construction Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1167 - ITAT HYDERABAD]

  There does not appear to be any dispute about the fact that the Assessing Officer’s assessment order; take for instance, the order dated 30th December, 2017 has not controverted the assessee’s plea that Clause 3.1 of the concession agreement has resulted in the NHAI granting concessionary rights to reconstruct, operate and maintain the corresponding national highway project. We wish to repeat here that the Assessing Officer has only quoted the Board’s Circular No.9/2014 dated 23rd April, 2014 in favour of amortization by following matching concept only. We observe in these factual backdrop that Revenue’s arguments supporting the impugned disallowance are not sustainable.We make it clear that assessee’s stand qua its claim is that it has been holding the concessionare rights in the nature of license to collect road toll of an intangible asset u/s 32(1)

  Coming to the exclusive usage part; we see no material on record which would indicate that anybody other than the assessee is entitled to dilute its rights to construct, operate, maintain the project in lieu of the toll collections right for the specified agreement period. We therefore hold that the assessee’s right to collect toll would form an exclusive right in the nature of license eligible to be treated as an intangible asset as per Special Bench’s decision (supra).We thus decline the Revenue’s arguments supporting the impugned depreciation disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1118
  

  Registration of sale certificate - petitioner Bank submitted that the provisions under the SARFAESI Act will have primacy over the proceedings in an Arbitration Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of this Court, in which Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH is a party, in M/S. AACHI MASALA FOODS PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. EDELWISS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., M/S. JAI BHAVANI STEELS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BONDS, THE SUB-REGISTRAR [2020 (10) TMI 150 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] was pleased to hold that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act would have primacy, especially in a case where the mortgage in favour of the Bank was earlier.

  In the case on hand also, the registered mortgage was admittedly prior. The 9th respondent in W.P.(MD)No.6976 of 2020 / 8th respondent in W.P.(MD)No. 1101 of 2021 sought for an attachment in an arbitration proceedings, in which, the petitioners Bank was obviously not a party, as the transaction has got nothing to do with it. The said order was also subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the petitioner. Now, a third party right has also been created through the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchasers. If the 1st respondent raise a contention that in view of the recording of the attachment order by it already, the subsequent sale deed cannot be registered, then the very act of recording the said interim order of attachment passed by the Tribunal itself ought not to have been done, as there was a subsisting mortgage on that date.

  The petitioner Bank cannot be denied the relief as sought for - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1117
  

  Correct head of income - Rental receipts - assessable as ‘Income from house property’ OR ‘business income’ - HELD THAT:- As the assessee has itself declared the very kind of receipt derived in the subsequent assessment years under the head ‘business income’ only and therefore, it does not dispute the lower authorities action under challenge which has been the subject matter above extracted twin grounds. And more so, in view of hon’ble apex court’s decision in Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] and tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 11.7.2016. We decline the assessee’s above two substantive grounds in foregoing terms therefore.

  Admission of assessee’s additional ground - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the tribunal’s jurisdiction continues right from filing of the appeal till final disposal u/s 254 of the Act. Their lordships landmark judgement in NTPC [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] has clarified that this second appellate jurisdiction has to be taken in widest than in a narrower sense. We make it clear the hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision (supra); even if taken as directly dealing with the issue, came much prior in time. We thus go by the judicial hierarchy to decline the Revenue’s objections regarding admission of asssessee’s additional ground. We also quote this tribunal’s decision All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIIT [2012 (5) TMI 466 - ITAT MUMBAI] that we can very well entertain and admit an additional ground to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee provided the relevant facts are already on record.

  Higher and secondary education cess paid - eligible deduction u/s 37 r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) while computing income under the head ‘profits and gains of business /profession’ - HELD THAT:- We hold that the asssessee’s paper book running clearly demonstrate that it had itself added back the education cess amount suo moto. Its further argument that we have to go by hon’ble apex court’s decisions dealing with central excise law also does not find favour with us in view of hon’ble Bombay high court’s decision in Sesa Goa Ltd.[2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] specifically dealing with this plea onwards thereby concluding that “a cess under the provisions of the Act is not to be taken as “tax” for the purpose of s.40(a)(ii) disallowance”. Therefore we accept assessee’s claim seeking to allow education cess and direct the Assessing Officer to finalise the consequential computation as per law. The assessee’s instant additional substantive ground is allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1116
  

  Seeking grant of status quo order or any interim directions in the Application for consideration before this Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The Application in simpliciter is an Application seeking early hearing of the main Company Petition. The Applicants / Petitioners seem to have been frustrated by the Covid-19 pandemic as that has put an effective break upon the mediation proceedings undertaken by the Mediator as well as the valuation exercises and aggrieved by it and in the circumstances they seem to have filed this Application - It is also evident from the record of proceedings that at the instance of the Applicants / Petitioners, this Tribunal has evolved a mechanism for sale of the properties giving adequate representations to all the family group concerned, all being closely related to each other vide order dated 16.04.2019, under the instance of the Applicants / Petitioners. Further this Tribunal has also ordered for a change of the independent Observer, appointed by this Tribunal namely one Mr. Sankara Narayanan, Senior Advocate to Mr. 0m Prakash Ellanty, Senior Advocate vide its order dated 12.06.2019.

  Taking into consideration the pendency of the Mediation proceedings as well as the overall interests of the parties concerned and that of the 1^st Respondent Company, the mediation proceedings should be expedited as it is more than a year since passing of the order dated 03.01.2020 wherein we had given a time frame to complete the mediation proceedings by the Mediators - it is appropriate for the Mediator in case the Mediator is not comfortable with the mediation proceedings being conducted in physical mode, at the least, to conduct the same, virtually.

  The Mediator are directed to re-commence the mediation proceedings at the earliest commencing from 1st February 2021 and complete the process of mediation by March 15, 2021 after giving advance notice to the parties concerned - application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1115
  

  Grant of bail - attachment of London based property - foreign proceeds of crime - siphoning off of funds - criminal conspiracy with Kapil Wadhwan, Promoter Director of M/s.DHFL and others for extending financial assistance to M/s. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd (DHFL) in lieu of substantial undue benefit to applicant and his family members through companies held by them - HELD THAT:- The proceeds of crime according to complainant involved in this case is ₹ 5050 Crores. It is also revealed that the applicant had siphoned off huge amount out of India through his family/group owned controlled companies. It is found that out of the proceeds of crime of ₹ 600 Crores, ₹ 378 Crores were invested overseas. The investigation in relation to exact foreign proceeds of crime is still under investigation. The applicant and his family members have incorporated or beneficially interest in various companies. The applicant is desperately trying to dispose of his property. He has given online advertisement for sale of his London based property - The said property is attached by ED vide provisional attachment order dated 25th September 2020 being proceeds of crime in terms of Section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA Act. According to complainant if the applicant is released on bail, he will try to sell that property. Further investigation is still in progress.

  The offence is of serious nature. There is voluminous evidence showing involvement of the applicant in the crime. In the light of nature of evidence, no case for grant of bail is made out. It is settled law that while granting bail the Court has to keeping in mind the nature of accusations, evidence in support thereof. Huge loss of public fund is required to be viewed seriously. The Special Court under PMLA has analysed the material on record - there are no reason to deviate from the said observation. The applicant being MD/CEO of YES Bank has allegedly misused his position to gain undue financial gain to him and his family members. The applicant and his family earned beneficial. The statement of witnesses shows the modus operandi of the accused.

  Investigation revealed that YES Bank extended loans to entities despite incurring losses. These entities extended loan to company owned by family members of applicant. There was no active or operating business in DUVPL. The loan proposal was approved by DHFL on the basis of standard properties furnished as security by DUVPL, a company owned by daughters of applicant. DUVPL has no business activity and not generating revenue. Investigation revealed that money was laundered to buy properties at several places in India and abroad - There are specific allegations against applicant that he has gained financial benefits. The submissions urged by applicant is in the nature of defense. It cannot be disputed that money lying with YES Bank is public Money.

  It is settled law that, the Court has to take into consideration nature of accusations, evidence in support, severity of punishment which conviction will entail, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with larger interest of public/state. It is also settled law that economic loss of public offences involving huge funds to be viewed seriously.

  On the basis of evidence on record no case for grant of bail is made out - bail application ejected.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1114
  

  Maintainability of petition - requirement of Non Banking Finance companies (NBFC) to take registration from RBI to conduct business - seeking directions to register the information of alleged cognizable offences committed under the Reserve Bank of India Act - withdrawal made by the petitioner of the PIL filed before this Court - principles of res judicata.

  Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in view of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, as also withdrawal made by the petitioner of the PIL filed before this Court? - HELD THAT:- In pursuance of the directions of the Delhi High Court in INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS [2017 (5) TMI 1757 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has been passed by RBI - the releifs sought for by the petitioner in the PCR is for the RBI to take action against the Respondents 2 to 7 on the basis of the allegation that the Respondents 2 to 7 have violated Section 45-IA of the RBI Act, the RBI having already considered the said request and passed an order according to RBI dated 05.09.2017, the reliefs sought for in the PCR cannot be granted, as such the question of issuance of a certiorari to quash the order dismissing the PCR, restoring the PCR and issuing directions to the RBI to consider the alleged offence would also not arise. The RBI having contended that the letter dated 05.09.2017 is an order, the Petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

  The present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, as also withdrawal made by the petitioner of the PIL filed before this Court as also the order passed by the RBI dated 05.09.2017.

  Whether the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, as also the order of withdrawal passed by the Division Bench of this Court would amount to rejudicata? - HELD THAT:- The order of the Delhi High Court was only a direction to the RBI to consider the complaints and pass an order. Such a direction not being one on merits cannot be termed to operate as resjudicata. For an order to operate as resjudicata it has to be passed on merits between the same parties - The order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court would not qualify to be that passed between the same parties since the parties in the present matter are different and as such, the said order would not operate as rejudicata - thus, the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, as also the order of withdrawal passed by the Division Bench of this Court would not amount to rejudicata.

  The writ petition filed is an abuse of process of law and of this Court, the same is not maintainable. The grievance of the petitioner has already been addressed by RBI by its order dated 5.09.2017 passed. If at all the petitioner has any grievance as regards the said order, the petitioner is required to take adequate and necessary steps not by filing of proceedings by way of a private complaint before the Magistrate or by way of writ petition before this Court - Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1113
  

  Maintainability of petition - assets removed from the companies - seeking constitution of Multi disciplinary investigation team to investigate the matter - violation of provisions of SEBI Act - HELD THAT:- In Sarguja Transport Services, [1986 (11) TMI 377 - SUPREME COURT] it is held by the Apex Court that the principle underlying in Rule 1 of Order XXIII. of Code of Civil Procedure should be extended in the interest of administration of justice to the cazes of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of 'public policy'. It is further held that while the of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without permission.

  A careful perusal of the representations annexed to the PIL and this writ petition show that the grievance of the petitioner; is one and the same so far as violation of provisions of SEB] Act and Regulations are concerned. Admittedly, petitioner bas withdrawn the PIL unconditionally. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained in view of law laid down in Sarguja Transport Service.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1112
  

  Maintainability of petition - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - seeking constitution of multidisciplinary investigation team to investigate and prosecute respondent No. 11 and his associates for the offences alleged to have been committed by them - Direction against the Enforcement Directorate to register a case for offences of money laundering arising out of the scheduled offences - HELD THAT:- In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2007 (12) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has held that when some one has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered and he rushes to High Court with a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr-P.C., High Court should not encourage this practice and ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy.

  Admittedly, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 190(1)(c) read with Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special PMLA Court.

  This writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of public policy is sustained - petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1111
  

  Date of removal of disqualification of Director - whether the Corporate Debtor has complied with the conditions stipulated in the settlement agreement produced before this Tribunal? - HELD THAT:- It is true that the IBA has been disposed of on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties stating that they have settled the matter stating that on 26.8.2020 settlement has been arrived for a total sum of ₹ 2,25,00,000/- as full and final settlement of the entire claim between the Corporate Debtor M/s Sree Bhadra Parks and Resorts Limited on the terms mentioned in the settlement agreement. When a settlement has been arrived between the parties, it is duty bound by the Corporate Debtor to make good the payments proposed in that settlement. They cannot go back making various allegations including maintainability of the IBA after making default in the payment agreed to between the parties.

  The contention regarding the application is not maintainable as the order stipulates for filing a fresh application cannot be accepted because merely on technicalities the Corporate Debtor cannot wash away their hands from complying with the conditions stipulated in the final order passed by this Tribunal - Application allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1110
  

  Levy of penalty - release of subject goods on payment of redemption fine conforms to the scheme of Sections 2(33), 111(d) and 135 of Customs Act, 1962, section 3 of FTDR Act, 1992 read with notification dated 18.12.2019 and 28.3.2020 issued by Union of India or not? - HELD THAT:- The Customs Act defines what is prohibited goods and effect of importing prohibited goods; consequence of goods imported contrary to Section 111(d) option to pay redemption fine in lieu of confiscation or confiscation. This Court is of the view that the exercise of discretion and jurisdiction either by the adjudicating authority or by the Appellate Tribunal ought not to be moulded by a cast. The jurisdiction under Sections 111 (d) and 125 of Customs Act, 1962 is read with the provisions of FTDR Act, 1992, foreign trade policy and the notifications issued by the Government from time to time - The combined exercise of authority and discretion by Customs Commissioner etc. in these matters, conform to the requirements of judicial discretion. The discretion or power is exercised combining the relevant provision in the Act, notification and facts prevailing on the date of consideration etc. The authorities are guided by the information available to them in a given case.

  The consideration of Appellate Tribunal in the case on hand is illegal, ignored relevant notifications, the mandate of FTDR Act and Customs Act 1962. The adjudications of a dispute in these matters is neither on the pedestal of travesty of justice or we have so much discretion for doing proverbial justice to an importer. In matters of this nature, such approach would go contrary to the object sought to be implemented by the authorities, in whom power is conferred particularly in matters of import, export, price etc. In our considered view, the other question whether it is restricted, prohibited the decisions rendered under customs under import and export etc., need not be considered. By juxtaposing the order of Commissioner of Customs and the order under appeal we are fully convinced that the Appellate Tribunal committed serious error in law by ordering release of goods under Section 125 - question is answered in favour of Revenue and against the Importer.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- The importer, as noted by the Commissioner of Customs is familiar with the practices and procedures for import and export of goods. The chronological events in the matter are already noted in the preceding paragraph. The importer in the case on hand files an application for trade licence on 22.04.2020. Bill of lading is dated 27.04.2020. Bill of entry is filed on 23.06.2020. The importer used its volition and choices for importing the subject goods. It is not the argument of importer that for contravention in any import the authorities does not power to levy the penalty - Penalty upheld.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2021 (1) TMI 1109
  

  Settlement of dispute relating to the tax arrears for the assessment years under consideration under The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 - as stated that the necessary declaration in accordance with Section 4 of The Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 has been filed by the assessee - appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the Separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi {CIT(A)} for Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08 - HELD THAT:- As aforesaid is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to tax arrears for the captioned assessment years are not ultimately resolved in terms of the aforestated Act, the appellant (i.e., the assessee) shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeals and the Tribunal shall consider such applications appropriately as per law. The respondent (i.e., the Revenue) has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat.

  In view of the aforesaid, the appeals are consigned to the records and, for statistical purposes, are treated as dismissed.

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516........ 68