Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1993 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 181 to 200 of 2976 Records

• 1993 (12) TMI 12
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the gifts made by the assessee and his brother.
  2. Validity of the addition of Rs. 7,195 to the assessee's income under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Applicability of Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the gifts made by the assessee and his brother
  The primary question was whether the gift of a one-third share of land by the assessee's brother to the assessee's wife falls under the mischief of Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal initially held that the gift did not attract Section 64 since the assessee had made gifts to his major nephews, and his brother had independently gifted land to the assessee's wife.
  
  However, the High Court referenced a previous decision involving the same parties (CIT v. Mohmadmiya A. Topiwala [1994] 207 ITR 711) where it was determined that the transfer by the assessee's brother was indirectly a transfer by the assessee. The court concluded that the gift to the assessee's wife was a strategic move to circumvent legal liabilities, thus falling under Section 64(1)(iii). The court reiterated that the Tribunal's finding of no intimate connection between the transfers was incorrect and that the transfers were indeed interconnected.
  
  The court dismissed the assessee's argument that the previous judgment lacked jurisdiction, affirming that the High Court could not reappraise the Tribunal's factual findings unless specifically challenged as perverse. The court upheld that the Tribunal's inference was a mixed question of law and fact, thereby justifying the High Court's interference.
  
  Issue 2: Validity of the addition of Rs. 7,195 to the assessee's income under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
  The second question pertained to the inclusion of Rs. 7,195, paid as interest to the assessee's wife, in the assessee's income under Section 64. The Tribunal had confirmed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order deleting this addition, based on the reasoning that the income did not arise directly or indirectly from the assets transferred by the assessee to his wife.
  
  The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the interest income had a proximate connection with the transfer of assets. The court distinguished the present case from CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh [1970] 77 ITR 27 (SC) and CIT v. Prahladrai Agarwala [1989] 177 ITR 398 (SC), where the Supreme Court had ruled that income must have a proximate connection with the transfer of assets to be included under Section 64. The court noted that in the current case, the assessee's wife invested the sale proceeds from the gifted land with the assessee, who paid her interest, thus establishing a direct connection.
  
  The court held that all conditions under Section 64(1)(iii) were satisfied:
  (i) There was a transfer of assets by the assessee to his wife.
  (ii) The transfer was without adequate consideration.
  (iii) The income (interest) arose directly from the transferred assets.
  
  Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in confirming the deletion of Rs. 7,195 from the assessee's income. The court answered the second question in favor of the Revenue, affirming the inclusion of the interest amount in the assessee's income under Section 64.
  
  Conclusion:
  Both questions referred to the High Court were answered in favor of the Revenue. The court held that the gifts made by the assessee and his brother fell within the scope of Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the interest income of Rs. 7,195 should be included in the assessee's income. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 11
  
  Issues:
  Assessment of income from other sources and capital gains in the hands of a body of individuals under the Portuguese Civil Code.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to the assessment year 1975-76, involving a married couple governed by the Portuguese Civil Code. The Income-tax Officer initially assessed their income as a body of individuals, which was challenged in appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both ruled that the income should be assessed separately in the hands of each spouse. The key question referred to the High Court was whether the income from other sources and capital gains should be assessed in the hands of the body of individuals or separately for each spouse.
  
  The High Court analyzed the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, specifically highlighting that under Goan customary law, both spouses have a fixed half share in income from dividends, interest, and capital gains. Referring to previous judgments, the court emphasized that income possessed by the communion of interest of husband and wife should be assessed in equal shares in the hands of each spouse individually. The court also cited cases where similar principles were applied to gift-tax assessments and income from business run by the communion.
  
  Furthermore, the court distinguished between income derived from investments held jointly by the spouses and income arising from business activities of the communion. It was established that income from investments, including interest, dividends, and capital gains, should be assessed separately for each spouse as individuals. The court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment regarding wealth-tax, emphasizing that joint rights in property due to marriage under the Portuguese Civil Code do not create an association of persons for tax purposes.
  
  Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the income from other sources and capital gains should be assessed separately for each spouse, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. The judgment clarified that the assessment did not involve income from business activities of the communion, focusing solely on income from investments. The ruling was in favor of the assessees, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 10
  
  Issues:
  1. Application to quash criminal process under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. Interpretation of section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding wilful evasion of tax payment.
  3. Analysis of legal definitions of "evasion" in relation to tax laws.
  4. Examination of mens rea element in tax evasion cases.
  5. Differentiation between evasion before and after assessment under section 276C(2).
  6. Assessment of wilful attempt to evade tax payment in specific cases.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by B. C. Patel of the High Court of Gujarat dealt with two applications seeking to quash criminal processes under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitions involved allegations of wilful evasion of tax payment under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The first case, arising from Criminal Case No. 339 of 1986, accused the petitioner of failing to pay advance tax and evading tax payment from December 15, 1980, to September 29, 1981. The petitioner argued that there was no intention to evade payment as all penalties were paid and no underhand dealing was involved.
  
  The interpretation of section 276C was crucial in determining the wilful evasion element. The petitioner's advocate highlighted the necessity of positive averments in the complaint to prove tax evasion. Reference was made to legal definitions of "evasion" from various dictionaries to emphasize the intentional avoidance of tax through deceit or underhand dealings. The court examined past judgments, including the Privy Council case of Simms v. Registrar of Probates, to understand the concept of evasion in tax matters.
  
  The judgment also delved into the mens rea element in tax evasion cases, emphasizing that the element of intent must be established for imposing penalties under section 276C. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT to support the requirement of mens rea in tax evasion cases. It was argued that mere failure to file a return does not necessarily indicate dishonest or mala fide intentions, and mens rea is essential for prosecution under section 276C.
  
  Furthermore, the court differentiated between evasion before and after assessment under section 276C(2). It clarified that sub-section (2) applies to cases of evasion after the assessment has been made, where the taxpayer attempts to evade payment of determined taxes. The court rejected the argument that the case fell under section 276C(2) due to failure to pay advance tax, as the evasion must occur after the tax amount is determined.
  
  Ultimately, the court quashed the criminal processes in both cases, ruling that there was no evidence of wilful attempt to evade tax payment as required under section 276C(2). The judgment highlighted the importance of proving mens rea and intentional evasion in tax matters, emphasizing the need for clear allegations and evidence to support criminal prosecution for tax evasion.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 9
  
  Issues Involved:
  The judgment involves the interpretation of sections 194A, 2(31), and 161(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the liability of trustees to deduct and pay tax on interest amounts credited to payees' accounts.
  
  Interpretation of Section 194A:
  The complaints were filed against the petitioners for alleged breaches under section 276B read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complaints were related to failure to deduct tax from interest amounts credited to payees' accounts and failure to pay the tax after deduction. The petitioners contended that section 194A of the Act, which pertains to deduction of income tax on interest payments, was not applicable to their case.
  
  Liability of Trustees:
  The complainants argued that as the petitioners included a trust and trustees, they were responsible for deducting and paying the tax on interest amounts credited to payees. They cited sections 2(31) and 161(1) of the Act to support their claim that both the trust and trustees should be held liable for the tax obligations. However, the petitioners' counsel argued that trustees should be assessed in the same manner as beneficiaries, relying on a Supreme Court decision in a similar context.
  
  Legal Position and Decision:
  The court analyzed the legal provisions and the arguments presented. It concluded that section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the petitioners' case. Therefore, there was no basis for the alleged offences under section 276B read with section 278B of the Act. The court held that the process issued against the accused should be quashed, and subsequently, the applications were dismissed. The ruling clarified that trustees were not liable under section 194A in this scenario, leading to the dismissal of the complaints against the petitioners.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 8
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of statutory deductions under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77.
  2. Treatment of deductions under sections 80G and 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for computing capital employed.
  3. Exclusion of unclaimed dividends while computing capital employed for the assessment year 1976-77.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The court addressed the questions of law related to the computation of capital employed for statutory deduction under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The court referred to previous decisions and answered the questions in favor of the assessee based on established case law.
  
  2. The court deliberated on the treatment of deductions allowed under sections 80G and 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for computing capital employed. The court relied on precedents and held that such deductions could not be considered as sums not "includible" in the total income for income-tax assessment, thus not falling for deduction under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
  
  3. The issue of excluding unclaimed dividends while computing capital employed for the assessment year 1976-77 was contested. The court analyzed the distinction between "provision" and "reserves" as per relevant statutes. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the court emphasized the necessity of clear earmarking or separation of funds to constitute a reserve. The court concluded that unclaimed dividends, being a known liability, should not have been included in general reserves for computing capital employed.
  
  The court highlighted the importance of express indication by directors regarding the utilization of funds and emphasized that dividends are typically paid from current income unless specified otherwise. The judgment affirmed the exclusion of unclaimed dividends from general reserves for computing capital employed, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The court dismissed the Tribunal's decision to include unclaimed dividends in general reserves, emphasizing the need for explicit authorization for such inclusion.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 7
  
  Issues:
  Validity of section 2(2) of the Finance Act, 1977 regarding aggregation of agricultural income with total income for taxing purposes.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of section 2(2) of the Finance Act, 1977, which allowed for the aggregation of agricultural income with total income for tax purposes. The petitioners argued that agricultural income should not be included in the total income for tax calculation as it was not contemplated in the Income-tax Act, 1961. They contended that such aggregation would lead to double taxation and violate Article 246 of the Constitution of India.
  
  The Division Bench judgments of the Kerala High Court and the Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of similar provisions in the Finance Acts of 1973 and 1974. They reasoned that while agricultural income is excluded from the charge of income tax, the Finance Acts provided for specific provisions allowing for the inclusion of agricultural income in total income for rate calculation purposes. The courts held that such provisions did not exceed the legislative competence of Parliament and were valid under the Constitution.
  
  The Karnataka High Court further explained that Parliament, under entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, had the power to include agricultural income for computing total income without subjecting it to tax. The court emphasized that the classification of assessees with agricultural income for higher tax rates on their net income was based on the capacity to pay tax and was not arbitrary. The court concluded that the provisions in the Finance Act, 1976, regarding the aggregation of agricultural income with total income for rate purposes were constitutional and did not violate articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
  
  In line with the Division Bench judgments of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts, the Madras High Court, in this case, upheld the constitutional validity of section 2(2) of the Finance Act, 1977. The court held that the aggregation of agricultural income with total income for tax calculation purposes was within the legislative competence of Parliament. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging the provision were dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
  
  In conclusion, the court found that the inclusion of agricultural income in total income for rate calculation purposes was constitutionally valid and fell within the legislative powers of Parliament. The judgments of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts provided the legal basis for upholding the provision in question, and the writ petitions were dismissed accordingly.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 6
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Interpretation of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1982.
  2. Requirement of continuous use of the residential property for claiming exemption under Section 54.
  3. Differing judicial interpretations by various High Courts on the matter.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Interpretation of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood before the amendment by the Finance Act, 1982. The section provided for exemption from capital gains tax if the property transferred was used by the assessee or their parents for residence "in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place." The court needed to determine whether this meant continuous use for the entire two years or if intermittent use within the two years was sufficient.
  
  2. Requirement of Continuous Use of the Residential Property:
  The court examined whether the assessee or his parents must have used the residential house for an unbroken and continuous period of two years before the transfer to claim exemption. The High Courts of Madras and Gujarat held that continuous use for two years was necessary, while the Karnataka High Court opined that any use within the two years was sufficient. The Delhi High Court took a middle ground, suggesting that the house must have been "mainly" used for residence during the relevant period, even if not continuously.
  
  3. Differing Judicial Interpretations:
  The judgment reviewed various interpretations by different High Courts:
  - Madras and Gujarat High Courts: These courts insisted on continuous and unbroken use for two years to claim the exemption.
  - Karnataka High Court: This court held that any use within the two years sufficed.
  - Delhi High Court: This court emphasized that the house must have been "mainly" used for residence during the two years, even if not continuously.
  
  Court's Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the original asset must have been "mainly" used for personal residence by the assessee or his parents in the two years immediately preceding the transfer. The use must be substantial and not occasional or casual. The court rejected the extreme views of the Madras and Gujarat High Courts, which required continuous use, and the Karnataka High Court, which allowed for any use within the two years. Instead, it aligned with the Delhi High Court's interpretation, emphasizing the word "mainly" to indicate significant use for residence.
  
  Application to the Case:
  In the case at hand, the assessee's parents used the original flat for only two months before its transfer. The court held that this did not meet the requirement of "mainly" using the property for residence during the two years before the transfer. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 54.
  
  Final Judgment:
  The court answered the referred question in the negative, ruling in favor of the Revenue. It held that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for exemption under Section 54 as interpreted by the court. The court also noted that there would be no order as to costs.
  
  Summary:
  The court clarified that for exemption under Section 54, the residential property must be "mainly" used for residence by the assessee or their parents in the two years preceding the transfer. This use need not be continuous but must be substantial. The court rejected the interpretations requiring continuous use and those allowing any use within the two years, favoring a balanced approach that considers significant residential use.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 5
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deductibility of foreign tour expenses u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deductibility of Foreign Tour Expenses u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act
  
  The primary issue in this case is whether the foreign tour expenses incurred by the assessee-company for Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai are deductible u/s 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue argued that there is no evidence to show that Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai's visit was necessary for facilitating negotiations at the top level with foreign corporations. The fact that the Reserve Bank authorities sanctioned the necessary foreign exchange does not indicate that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
  
  The assessee contended that the visit was necessary for business negotiations and that the Reserve Bank's sanction of foreign exchange supports this claim. However, the court noted that the onus of proving that such deductions are permissible falls on the assessee. The conditions for deductibility u/s 37(1) include that the expenditure should not be of a personal nature, should be incurred in the accounting year, and must be laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
  
  The court found that the assessee failed to provide evidence showing how Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai's visit was necessary for business negotiations. There was no evidence of her qualifications, business experience, or the nature of negotiations that took place. Additionally, she was not a director or executive of the company, nor was there any record of her having a special aptitude for the business. The court concluded that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was, therefore, not deductible u/s 37(1).
  
  The court referenced previous judgments, including CIT v. T. S. Hajee Moosa and Co. and Bombay Mineral Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which held that expenses with a dual or personal purpose do not qualify for deduction. The court emphasized that the expenditure must be incurred solely for business purposes, unalloyed with any other consideration.
  
  In conclusion, the court held that the expenses incurred by the assessee on the foreign tour of Smt. Kamalini Sarabhai were gratuitous and for purposes outside the course of business. The Tribunal's decision to allow the claim was overturned, and the expenditure was not deductible u/s 37(1) of the Act.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 4
  
  Issues:
  1. Application under section 273A of the Income-tax Act for waiver of interest and penalty.
  2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order.
  3. Compliance with conditions precedent for invoking section 273A of the Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The petitioner filed income-tax returns for several assessment years and was aggrieved by the levy of interest under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner applied under section 273A of the Act for waiver of the interest. However, the respondent rejected the application citing non-compliance with the conditions stipulated in section 273A for waiver of penalty and interest. The respondent noted that the petitioner had not paid the taxes on the admitted income for certain years and had not made arrangements for payment of tax arrears for other years. The respondent found that the petitioner's filing of returns was prompted by a real estate investment, not genuine compliance with tax obligations.
  
  The petitioner argued that the order violated the principles of natural justice and should be set aside. The petitioner contended that taxes were paid based on the returns for most years, and therefore, interest should have been waived. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that there was no violation of natural justice and that the petitioner had not met the conditions precedent for invoking section 273A. The respondent relied on a judgment from the Kerala High Court to support this position.
  
  The court examined the contention of natural justice violation and found that the petitioner was represented by an authorized person during the proceedings, thus rejecting the argument of lack of opportunity to present the case. Regarding compliance with conditions precedent for invoking section 273A, the court noted that the petitioner had not paid taxes on admitted income for certain years and had not settled the tax differences for other years. The court referred to precedents to support the decision that non-compliance with conditions under section 273A precludes invoking its provisions.
  
  In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the respondent's decision to reject the application under section 273A due to non-compliance with the statutory conditions. The court found no merit in the arguments of natural justice violation and upheld the decision based on legal precedents cited during the proceedings.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 3
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rightly disallowed Rs. 43,633 being the amount deducted from the sale proceeds of alcohol and spirit and transferred to the storage fund for molasses and alcohol account under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971.
  2. Whether the Tribunal rightly deleted the disallowance of Rs. 16,041 made by the Department under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 43,633 Transferred to Storage Fund
  
  The assessee, engaged in manufacturing rectified spirit and other chemicals, was required by the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971, to transfer Rs. 6 per kilolitre from the sale proceeds of rectified spirit to a storage fund for molasses and alcohol. This amount was to be used exclusively for constructing storage facilities as per statutory directions. The assessee argued that this amount should not be included in its total income as it was statutorily diverted at source.
  
  The court noted that the selling price of rectified spirit was statutorily fixed and included Rs. 6 per kilolitre for the storage fund, which was a statutory diversion at source. This amount did not reach the assessee as income but was earmarked for the storage fund. The court held that the assessee lost domain over this amount, which had to be used as per statutory directions, and therefore, it could not be considered part of the assessee's real income.
  
  The court referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 690, where a similar statutory diversion under the Molasses Control Order was held not to be part of the assessee's income. The court agreed with this view, emphasizing that the statutory compulsion and the lack of control over the amount by the assessee indicated a clear diversion at source.
  
  The court disagreed with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Jiwajirao Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 182, which held that the amount directed to the storage fund was part of the assessee's income. The court emphasized that the ownership of the fund was not relevant; what mattered was the statutory compulsion and the lack of domain over the amount.
  
  The court also referenced decisions from the Kerala High Court in Cochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 93 ITR 582 and the Bombay High Court in Amalgamated Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 334, which supported the view that statutory diversions at source do not form part of the assessee's real income.
  
  The court concluded that the amount of Rs. 43,633 did not form part of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1974-75 and answered the question in favor of the assessee.
  
  Issue 2: Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 16,041 under Section 40A(5)
  
  The court noted that both parties agreed that the answer to this question should be in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, based on the decisions in CIT v. Hico Products (P.) Ltd. (No. 2) [1993] 201 ITR 575 and CIT v. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd. (No. 1) [1993] 201 ITR 567. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.
  
  Conclusion
  
  The court held that the amount of Rs. 43,633 did not form part of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1974-75 and answered the first question in favor of the assessee. The court also answered the second question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. No order as to costs was made.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  1. Applicability of sections 40(c) and 40A(5) to a director-employee.
  2. Determination of remuneration for a director who is also an employee.
  3. Inclusion of gratuity in remuneration for disallowance under sections 40A(5)/40(c).
  4. Relevance of the point of time for payment under section 40(c).
  5. Limitation on expenditure disallowance for reasonable payments.
  6. Disallowance of specific amounts paid to a director-employee.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of Bombay was presented with a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding various questions related to the assessment year 1975-76 concerning a director-employee of an assessee-company. The primary issue revolved around whether the provisions of section 40(c) or section 40A(5) applied to the case. The court held that in the case of a director-employee, both sections are applicable, and the higher of the two ceilings must be applied. This decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Indian Engineering and Commercial Corporation P. Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 723.
  
  Regarding the inclusion of gratuity in the remuneration for disallowance, the court referred to a previous decision in CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 770. The court ruled that the expenditure on payment of retirement gratuity was not covered under sections 40(c) or 40A(5) but was deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Thus, the court answered this question in favor of the assessee.
  
  As a consequence of the above rulings, questions related to the point of time for payment under section 40(c) and the limitation on expenditure disallowance did not require an answer. However, a specific sum paid to the director-employee was subject to disallowance. The court directed the Tribunal to recompute the disallowance amount after excluding the gratuity payment and considering the aggregate ceiling of Rs. 72,000 applicable to the case.
  
  Ultimately, considering the facts and circumstances, the court made no order as to costs, concluding the judgment on the referenced issues related to the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 1993 (12) TMI 1
  

  Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was justified in refusing to exercise his power under section 273A of the Act was a question which was required to be examined on the merits - case is remanded - order of HC is accordingly set aside

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 254
  
  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

  - Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondent of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, despite the prosecution's evidence.

  - Whether the evidence of the sole eyewitness, Rohan (PW-14), was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

  - Whether the delay in lodging the first information report (FIR) during the night of the incident justified rejection of the prosecution case.

  - Whether the accused's conduct amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offence under Section 304 IPC.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Reliability and Sufficiency of Eyewitness Evidence (Rohan PW-14)

  The Court examined the testimony of Rohan, the sole eyewitness, who accompanied the deceased on the motorcycle from Delhi to Rohtak and witnessed the entire sequence of events, including the altercation at Bahadurgarh, the repeated attempts by the accused to run them down with his car, and the fatal impact on Chetan.

  The relevant legal framework recognizes that conviction can rest on the testimony of a sole witness if the court is convinced of the witness's truthfulness and presence at the scene beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that Rohan's testimony was detailed, consistent, and corroborated by multiple evidentiary elements, including:

  • The accused's admission under Section 313 CrPC that his car was parked at the juice seller's shop and that there was an altercation with a boy who abused him.
  • The presence of broken glass pieces and a plastic strip marked "Maruti-800" at the scene, which matched the damaged Maruti car of the accused seized subsequently.
  • The damage localized to the right side of the accused's car, consistent with the injuries on the left side of the deceased's body found during post-mortem examination.
  • The physical injuries on the deceased, including 11 wounds mostly on the left side, and incised wounds caused by the trolley's agricultural implements, consistent with the deceased being thrown onto the trolley after impact.

  The Court found no material contradictions or demolishing cross-examination of Rohan's testimony. The High Court's rejection of Rohan's evidence was deemed unjustified, especially since it failed to provide reasons for such rejection beyond speculative assertions that the eyewitness evidence was a "belated attempt to improve testimony".

  Delay in Lodging the First Information Report

  The High Court had expressed doubt about the delay in lodging the FIR, which was filed the following morning rather than on the night of the incident. The Court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the delay, including:

  • The emotional and psychological trauma experienced by Rohan, a 19-year-old who had narrowly escaped death and witnessed his brother's fatal injury.
  • The absence of the victim's father, a military officer residing in Delhi, who only arrived at Rohtak early morning and then lodged the FIR based on Rohan's narration.
  • The natural human response to such a traumatic event, which the Court recognized as a valid explanation for the delay.

  The Court held that delay in lodging the FIR, if satisfactorily explained, cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case entirely. The Court emphasized that the prosecution unfolded in a natural manner and the delay did not create reasonable doubt about the occurrence.

  Application of Circumstantial Evidence and Physical Evidence

  The Court considered the circumstantial evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, including:

  • Seizure of the damaged Maruti car from the accused's residence, with the right side badly damaged.
  • Recovery of broken glass and blood stains from the car and the scene of occurrence.
  • Mechanical examination confirming that the broken glass pieces found on the road matched the accused's car.
  • Seizure of the accused's clothes and medical examination indicating injuries consistent with the incident.

  This evidence corroborated Rohan's testimony and established the accused's presence and involvement in the fatal incident.

  Whether the Offence is Murder under Section 302 IPC or a Lesser Offence under Section 304 IPC

  The accused contended that even if the prosecution's case was accepted, the offence would only amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. The Court rejected this contention, reasoning that:

  • The accused made repeated attempts to run down the two brothers with his car after the initial altercation.
  • The final impact was intentional and caused serious bodily injuries to Chetan, which the accused knew were likely to cause death.
  • The accused's conduct fulfilled the ingredients of murder as defined under Section 300 IPC.

  The Court thus held that the accused was liable for murder under Section 302 IPC.

  Treatment of Competing Arguments

  The Court carefully examined the High Court's reasons for acquittal, particularly the doubts about Rohan's presence and the delay in FIR. It found these reasons insufficient and unsupported by evidence. The Court also considered the defence's admission of the altercation and the accused's presence at the scene, which corroborated the prosecution's narrative. The defence did not challenge Rohan's presence or the sequence of events but argued on the legal classification of the offence.

  The Court gave weight to the prosecution's evidence and rejected the defence's attempt to downgrade the offence.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  "A conviction can be based and the verdict of the court can rest even on the testimony of a sole witness, if the court is fully satisfied that such witness is a truthful witness and his presence at the time of occurrence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt."

  "No adverse inference can be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the present case, because Rohan (PW-14) or anyone did not lodge the first information report during the night itself... If the prosecution explains the delay satisfactorily, the Court is not expected to reject the whole prosecution case merely on that ground."

  "The accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries, as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of Chetan. As such he committed the offence of murder within the meaning of Section 300, liable to be punished for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code."

  The Court conclusively held that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused and set aside the acquittal, convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Court emphasized the reliability of the eyewitness testimony corroborated by physical and circumstantial evidence, and the sufficiency of the prosecution case to establish murder beyond reasonable doubt.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 253
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Eligibility criteria for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer.
  2. Validity of the selection process for promotions.
  3. Applicability and interpretation of the office memorandum dated January 7, 1980.
  4. Regularization of ad-hoc promotions.
  5. Clarification of conditions of service for different branches of the Public Works Department.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Eligibility Criteria for Promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer:
  The eligibility criteria for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer were initially governed by the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Building and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936, which required a Junior Engineer to be confirmed, possess A.M.I.E./B.E. qualifications or pass a qualifying examination, and have 10 years of service. The Government Order dated December 3, 1964, also prescribed similar rules for the Electrical and Mechanical branches. However, the office memorandum dated January 7, 1980, amended these criteria, reducing the required service period to seven years for certain candidates.
  
  2. Validity of the Selection Process for Promotions:
  The selection process for promotions conducted by the State Government in 1983 was challenged on the grounds that it excluded Junior Engineers with seven years of service, as per the memorandum. The High Court set aside the selection, deeming it illegal for not including these candidates. However, the Supreme Court found that the selection process adhered to the existing rules requiring ten years of service and upheld the selection made by the State Government in 1983.
  
  3. Applicability and Interpretation of the Office Memorandum Dated January 7, 1980:
  The High Court interpreted the memorandum as superseding earlier instructions and reducing the eligibility criterion to seven years. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the memorandum did not specifically apply to the Electrical and Mechanical branches and was intended as a policy decision for future implementation. The memorandum did not amend the existing rules or explicitly modify the Government Order dated December 3, 1964. It was concluded that the memorandum was not meant to lay down conditions of service but to propose future policy changes.
  
  4. Regularization of Ad-hoc Promotions:
  The Supreme Court directed that Junior Engineers holding ad-hoc Assistant Engineer positions be considered for regularization under the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Promotions (on posts within the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1988. Those not covered by these rules should undergo a regular selection process, and successful candidates would be appointed from the dates of their initial ad-hoc appointments.
  
  5. Clarification of Conditions of Service for Different Branches of the Public Works Department:
  The Supreme Court noted the lack of clear conditions of service for the three branches of the Public Works Department. It recommended that the State of Uttar Pradesh establish clear and certain conditions of service either through executive instructions or statutory rules to avoid future ambiguities.
  
  Judgment Summary:
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the 1983 selection process. It declared the select list valid and operative, stating that the memorandum did not lay down conditions of service for the Electrical and Mechanical branches. The Court directed the regularization of ad-hoc promotees and recommended the State to clarify the conditions of service for all branches of the Public Works Department. The matters were disposed of with no costs.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 252
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Court is empowered to permit composition of the offences under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  2. Whether in cases where the statute provides for the minimum sentence, the Court would still be justified in granting composition of the offence.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Empowerment of the Court to Permit Composition of Offences:
  The primary issue was whether the Court could permit the composition of offences under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, despite the absence of express provisions for such composition in these Acts. The Court noted that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which pertains to the compounding of offences, does not cover offences under the Civil Rights Act and the Atrocities Act, nor do these Acts themselves contain express provisions for compounding.
  
  The Court emphasized that while the law is silent on the point of compromise, justice should not remain silent if a compromise can bring about peace and harmony. The Court acknowledged that while grave offences like murder and rape are rightly non-compoundable, offences that occur spontaneously and are of a milder nature could be considered for composition if the aggrieved party voluntarily agrees. The Court concluded that it is empowered to permit composition of such offences under its inherent powers, provided the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and serves the interest of justice and societal harmony.
  
  2. Justification of Granting Composition Despite Minimum Sentence Provisions:
  The second issue addressed whether the Court could grant composition in cases where the statute prescribes a minimum sentence. The Court noted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Atrocities Act prescribe minimum sentences for certain offences. However, the Court argued that the existence of a minimum sentence should not automatically preclude the possibility of composition if the aggrieved party is willing to settle the matter.
  
  The Court reasoned that allowing such compromises could serve the broader objectives of the Acts, such as rehabilitation and promoting social harmony. The Court dismissed the argument that permitting composition would be against public policy, stating that a genuine and voluntary compromise would, in fact, support public policy by fostering reconciliation and reducing caste-based conflicts.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court accepted the compromise purshis submitted by the parties, noting that the compromise was voluntary, genuine, and aimed at restoring peace and harmony. The Court quashed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, acquitting the accused of all charges. The Court also emphasized the importance of ensuring that such compromises are not coerced and should be verified for their genuineness.
  
  The judgment highlighted the Court's role in promoting justice and societal harmony, even in the absence of express legal provisions for compounding certain offences. The decision underscored the Court's inherent powers to facilitate compromises that serve the interests of justice and social peace.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 251
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to order of empanelling 'badli' workmen based on educational qualification criteria; Allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation by respondent; Interpretation of qualification criteria for 'badli' workmen; Judicial review of Labour Court's decision; Legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The case involved a challenge to the order passed by the High Court regarding the empanelling of 'badli' workmen based on educational qualifications. The respondent had initially presented a certificate indicating qualification up to the 7th Standard to meet the eligibility criteria of not exceeding 8th Standard. However, upon discovering that the respondent had completed the 10th Standard, the appellant terminated his services for fraudulent misrepresentation.
  
  2. The Labour Court, in its award, held that the respondent's conduct did not amount to false representation. It emphasized that qualifications should not be the sole criterion for supervisory roles and that practical difficulties would not arise if more qualified individuals were appointed as 'badli' workmen. The Labour Court's decision was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition.
  
  3. The Single Judge of the High Court disapproved of the Labour Court's view, stating that overqualification was a disqualification for the job, and the workers should have provided accurate information about their qualifications. The Single Judge set aside the Labour Court's decision and directed the reinstatement of the workers, noting that no hardship would be caused to the appellant.
  
  4. However, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal, stating that the irregularities in the Labour Court's decision did not warrant interference under Article 226. The appellant argued that such leniency in judicial reasoning could lead to a lack of discipline in administration and disadvantage truthful candidates.
  
  5. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's submissions, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of judicial reasoning. The Court held that both the Labour Court and the High Court had erred in their decisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the Labour Court and the High Court were set aside, and the respondent's dispute before the Labour Court was dismissed.
  
  6. The Supreme Court's judgment underscored the necessity of logical and principled legal reasoning to uphold the dignity, predictability, and respectability of the judicial process. The decision aimed to prevent the introduction of slackness and unpredictability in legal proceedings and ensure that judicial outcomes were based on sound legal findings.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 250
  
  Issues:
  Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Interpretation of Section 141 of the Act regarding liability of individuals in a company for the company's offenses.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involves a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners, who were directors of a company, were accused in the complaint despite not being directly responsible for the company's affairs. The respondent, in his written statement, argued that the petitioners were indeed in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Section 141 of the Act, which stipulates that individuals in a company who are in charge and responsible for the company's business conduct can be deemed guilty of offenses committed by the company.
  
  The petitioners contended that since there was no allegation in the complaint that they were in charge of or responsible for the company's business conduct at the time of the offense, the complaint against them should be quashed. They relied on legal precedents to support their argument. The court examined the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, which outline the liability of individuals in a company for offenses committed by the company. The court noted that the complaint only implicated the company and its managing director, not the petitioners. Drawing parallels from a previous case, the court emphasized the need for specific allegations against individuals to establish their vicarious liability for company offenses.
  
  In light of the arguments presented and legal precedents cited, the court found that no case was made out against the petitioners. The court accepted the petition, quashed the complaint against the petitioners, and allowed the trial court to proceed against other accused individuals in accordance with the law. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing individual liability based on specific allegations regarding their role in the company's affairs when dealing with offenses committed by a company.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 249
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order dismissing Writ Petition for direction to absorb appellants as conductors due to alleged arbitrary actions by Corporation.
  
  Summary:
  The appeal was filed against the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court upholding the dismissal of the Writ Petition by a Single Judge. The appellants sought absorption as conductors, claiming they were on a select list prepared by a Selection Committee. The Division Bench initially directed the Corporation to absorb the petitioners within three months, which was complied with. However, the Writ Petition was later dismissed as not pressed, leading to the appellants being issued a notice by the Corporation. The appeal to the Supreme Court contended that the dismissal was due to a misunderstanding and sought justice.
  
  Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court decided not to delve into the merits of the case but concluded that the matter should be sent back to the High Court for proper adjudication. The Court noted that the situation arose from an interim order issued by the High Court, which directed the Corporation to absorb the appellants without a full adjudication on the merits. The Court clarified that such a direction should have been part of a final decision after considering all aspects. To rectify the situation and ensure justice, the Supreme Court set aside the previous orders and remitted the case back to the High Court for a proper decision on the merits. It was also specified that the appellants should not work until the matter is finally resolved by the High Court.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with each party bearing their own costs, and the matter was to be reconsidered by the High Court for a fair and just determination.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 248
  
  Issues:
  Assessment order errors on liquidated damages/bad debts, liability provisions, capital expenditure, and bonus disallowance.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal challenges the CIT's order setting aside the assessment for the asst. yr. 1985-86 due to errors identified in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. The CIT noted discrepancies in the treatment of liquidated damages/bad debts, liability provisions, capital expenditure, and bonus disallowance. The CIT directed the AO to reframe the assessment in accordance with the law after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
  
  The appellant argued that the AO had considered and addressed all points during the assessment, citing a judgment by the Bombay High Court. The Departmental Representative contended that proper inquiries were not made by the AO, justifying the CIT's decision. The Tribunal examined each point in detail.
  
  Regarding liquidated damages/bad debts, the Tribunal found that the amount was not debited to the P&L account, and thus, there was no need to add it back to the income. The deduction for bad debts was not fully allowed, rendering the order not erroneous.
  
  On the liability provisions, the Tribunal upheld the AO's decision as the provision was based on actual claims and consistent practice, not erroneous or prejudicial.
  
  Concerning the capital expenditure, the Tribunal found the listing fees paid were admissible as per Board instructions, supporting the AO's decision.
  
  The fee paid for company law matters was also deemed allowable as business expenditure, as correctly allowed by the AO.
  
  Regarding the bonus disallowance, the Tribunal referenced various legal precedents to establish that the bonus was a contractual liability and not subject to the Payment of Bonus Act, thus supporting the AO's decision.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the CIT's invocation of jurisdiction under s. 263 was unjustified, emphasizing the need for an order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. Citing the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot substitute judgment unless the decision is erroneous and prejudicial, leading to the cancellation of the CIT's order.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, overturning the CIT's decision and upholding the assessment order by the AO.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 247
  
  Issues:
  1. Levy of interest under Section 8(1) of U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80.
  2. Interpretation of the Explanation to Section 8(1) regarding tax admittedly payable.
  3. Dispute over whether purchases were first purchases liable to tax under Section 3-D.
  4. Tribunal's decision on the liability of the dealer for purchase tax.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment revolves around a revision petition challenging the Sales Tax Tribunal's order quashing the levy of interest under Section 8(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80. The dealer, engaged in foodgrain business, contested that purchases were not first purchases subject to tax under Section 3-D, resulting in the imposition of interest by the assessing officer. The Tribunal, on Second Appeal, sided with the dealer, emphasizing that purchases were made from registered dealers and were wrongly treated as first purchases due to the absence of Form 3-C(2).
  
  2. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of the Explanation to Section 8(1) regarding tax admittedly payable. The Explanation defines tax admittedly payable as the tax disclosed in the dealer's accounts or admitted in returns, whichever is greater. The Tribunal found that the turnover in question was not reflected in the dealer's accounts as taxable turnover, as the purchases were made from registered dealers. Consequently, the tax levied could not be deemed as admitted by the dealer, aligning with the Tribunal's decision to reject the levy of interest under Section 8(1).
  
  3. The dispute over whether the purchases constituted first purchases liable to tax under Section 3-D was pivotal. The Tribunal acknowledged that the purchases were made from registered dealers, absolving the dealer from purchase tax liability. This stance was supported by the fact that in the preceding year, the Court had ruled in favor of the dealer on a similar issue, reinforcing the dealer's position regarding the non-liability for purchase tax under Section 3-D.
  
  4. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revision petition as lacking merit. It concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning that no interest under Section 8(1) could be imposed on the dealer, given the absence of the turnover in question as taxable turnover in the dealer's accounts. The judgment highlighted the importance of purchases from registered dealers in determining tax liability and emphasized the need for adherence to legal provisions in levying interest under the Sales Tax Act.

  ---

1 ....67891011121314........ 149