|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1452 Records
-
2021 (3) TMI 1372 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Exemption from taking registration or not - use of Acetic Anhydride for educational, scientific and analytical purposes - autonomous institutions - clause 4(1) of The Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Being an autonomous body, M/s Therachem Research Medilab (India) Ltd. RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura is exempted from taking registration as per clause 4(1) of The Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013. Still, a criminal case has been registered in utter violation of the above provisions - Admittedly, no allegation regarding narcotic substances has been levelled against the present petitioners but the respondent-authorities are adamant to arrest them. The action of the respondents is not sustainable in law at all. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioners should be given interim protection from any sort of coercive action.
Issue notice, returnable by 19/04/2021. Additional copy of the petition be served in the office of Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General for Union of India. His name be indicated in the cause list - List the matter on 19/04/2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1371 - ITAT MUMBAI
Taxable income of EOU for which deduction u/s 10B claimed - Allocation of Head Office Expenditure to Non-EOU units for the purpose of determining division wise profitability - assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of agro chemicals & drug intermediates - HELD THAT:- AO simply allocated the CBD expenses on the basis of turnover , by ignoring the criteria of gross block of assets and manpower employed in the respective units without any basis. The assessee tried to justify its basis of allocation by stating that all the units are though operational but at a different level of age of operationality and that the adoption of turnover criteria would be lopsided as certain units are capital intensive and labour intensive.
The assessee company had adopted the balanced approach by taking the average of gross block of assets, turnover and manpower employed in the respective units for the purpose of allocation of common expenses. As pleaded that the result of the allocation of common expenses on the basis of turnover had resulted in the reduction in the profit of EOU unit of Rs 27,92,178/- and consequently resulted in reduction of loss of Non EOU unit by the same amount. Despite these contentions, the ld CITA simply upheld the action of the ld AO without giving any independent findings. We find that since the allocation basis of common expenditure has been rejected by the lower authorities without any basis and by totally ignoring the various contentions raised thereon in respect of each of the behaviour of various units and the past assessments framed in the hands of the assessee u/s 143(3)
We are inclined to grant relief to the assessee by applying the principle of consistency and in the absence of change in facts during the year under consideration. Accordingly, the reduction in profit of EOU unit and consequential reduction of loss of Non EOU unit by the same amount is hereby reversed and relief is granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Inter related and deal with allocation of research & development expenses to various units - assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) towards capital expenditure on research and development - HELD THAT:- We find from the perusal of the financial statements of the assessee enclosed in the paper book filed before us, R & D unit is an independent unit having its own separate plant and situated in a different location. The activity carried out in the said R&D unit is totally different from that carried out at the other units i.e research for developing new products and processes. The said R&D unit has a separate electric meter, has independent staff, unit requires independent inputs or raw materials etc. Separate books of accounts are maintained for this R &D unit so as to deduce the division wise profitability. The said unit does not need any support from any of the other units and can function independently having its own customers and capable of generating independent revenue on its own. Hence expenditure of R&D unit cannot be apportioned to EOU units which has no connection with R&D unit.
We find from the past behaviour of the department in the income tax scrutiny assessments of the assessee, the revenue had not sought to disturb the contentions of the assessee with regard to this impugned issue. No addition or disallowance could be made merely based on the concession given by the assessee on without prejudice basis that 5% of R &D expenses could be allocated to other units. There is no estoppel against the statute. There is no basis also for the said allocation to be carried out. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the ld DR before us at the time of hearing. Hence we are not inclined to accede to the request of the ld DR that atleast 5% of expenses should be subject matter of allocation to other units. There is absolutely no change in the facts and circumstances of the case during the year under consideration and hence the revenue having accepted the stand of the assessee in earlier years has to strictly abide by the principle of consistency.
With regard to yet another contention of the ld AO that deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act could be claimed only by a company manufacturing or producing products, we find that the said section 35(2AB) of the Act does not restrict the research and development only with respect to the products already in existence. From the bare reading of the Explanation to Section 35(2AB) of the Act, we find that ‘expenditure on scientific research’, in relation to drugs and pharmaceuticals, shall include expenditure incurred on clinical drug trial, obtaining approval from any regulatory authority under any Central, State or Provincial Act and filing an application for a patent under the Patents Act, 1970. It is not in dispute that the assessee is already engaged in manufacturing pharma products. Accordingly, the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.
We hold that allocation of expenses to EOU units, allocation of deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) and allocation of deduction u/s 35(2AB) to other units is not warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1370 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2021 (2) TMI 1296 - ITAT DELHI] in view of the admitted position that the facts and circumstances involved for this year are identical to ones involved in assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, in which the issue was restored to the file of Assessing Officer to take a fresh view in the light of directions given in [2014 (7) TMI 1314 - ITAT DELHI] for assessment year 2009-10, we are of the considered opinion that the request of the assessee can be accepted. We accordingly, while setting aside the impugned findings of the authorities below, restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same in the light of the view to be taken for earlier assessment years. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1369 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Illegal trade and smuggling - fragile in terms of management of wildlife - Formation of Inter-State Co-ordination Committee with neighbouring states to deal with problems related to Wildlife Crime especially smuggling of wild animals and their articles - HELD THAT:- All illegal activities in relation to birds and animals in whatever form and in connection with whatever melas and other festivals have to be completely stopped by the State, in exercise of its police power, if needed. Therefore, it is ordered that hunting, selling, buying or exchanging of birds either as part of sale of domestic animals or otherwise shall stand prohibited by this order, apart from the prohibitory provisions contained in the different statute laws. It is also directed that transport and smuggling of live birds through various courier services or packages or any other mode through inland transport or through airports in any manner shall be prevented by the State Police and Police Authorities, Customs Authorities and security personnel in charge of the airports as well as police officials and other officials in control of the inland transport system.
The Airport Authorities, the Customs Authorities and the Authorities in control of the inter-state boundaries, exit points and entry points, are directed to ensure that transportation of live birds and other small and big animals which are part of wildlife, are intercepted and offenders are brought to book. The restrictions imposed through this order are for compliance throughout the State of West Bengal and this order shall by itself be treated as a prohibition with public notice.
Non-implementation of this order in its letter and spirit will be looked upon as dereliction of duty and violation of this order on the part of the officers in the administration whose obligation it is to enforce this order - Post this matter on May 14, 2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1368 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Application for fixing a special rate including the ad-on - HELD THAT:- No observation on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, nor on the maintainability of the representation is made and it would be up to the Principal Commissioner, GST or any other authority of the Department, who may take up the representation to pass any reasoned order as may be advisable under the law.
The writ petition stands closed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1367 - SUPREME COURT
Dowry - death of wife of the 1st respondent under unnatural circumstances - summoning the witnesses along with securing the relevant records - Section 173(5) read with Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT:- The object underlying Section 311 CrPC is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said “wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion.”
The aim of every Court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice - Indisputedly, the facts in the instant case are that the daughter of the appellant died an unnatural death on the intervening night of 2nd/3rd April, 2004 in Bangalore where she was living with the respondents who are facing trial under Sections 498A, 304-B, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the trial is at the fag end of its closure and the case is listed for hearing.
In the instant case, although the application was filed by the Ld. Additional Special Public Prosecutor under Section 173(5) read with Section 311 CrPC but it was open for the Ld. Trial Judge as well to exercise suo motu powers in summoning the witnesses whose statements ought to be recorded to subserve the cause of justice, with the object of getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth - It is not necessary that in every case, it is required to record elaborate reasons but since the matters are carried forward to this Court, the reasons, albiet brief may be, have to be recorded to facilitate this Court to understand as to what weighed with the Ld. Judge while passing the impugned judgment, moreover, when the finding of reversal has been recorded by the Ld. Judge in its impugned judgment.
The judgment of the High Court impugned dated 11th January, 2017 is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1366 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD
Seeking approval of the resolution plan of Adjudicating Authority - Section 31 of the IBC - HELD THAT:- With regard to the objection raised by the operational Debtor, this Adjudicating Authority has observed that the plan has dealt with the interest of the stakeholders as per Section 53 of IBC, 2016. The amount available to the Operational Creditor as per Section 53 of the Code, is considered as nil in view of large due to Secured Financial Creditors. Inspite of that, some amount is provided for operational creditors, workman and employees. It is proposed in the plan that the residual amount due to the Operational Creditors and employee, if any, (After allocation of Resolution Plan fund to Financial Creditor) shall be given priority in payment over Financial Creditors and the amount proposed for Operational Creditor and employees is as per Financial Plan and if there is shortfall in amount available to operational Creditor as per the Resolution Plan when compared to what is available to the Operational Creditor considering the liquidation value, in that case shortfall amount will be paid to them by reducing amount available to the Financial Creditor.
In the case in hand, this Adjudicating Authority is of the view that as the amount available to the Operational Creditor as per Section 53 of the Code, is considered as nil but Resolution Plan provided for payment @ 18.84% of claim admitted amount of the operational creditors which is more than the liquidation value and all the operational creditors has been treated equally thus the prayer of the operational creditor to modify the Resolution Plan to the extent of claim of RPPL is not sustainable.
Thus it is a well settled proposition of law that the commercial wisdom of COC are not open to judicial review thus the Adjudicating Authority cannot enquire into it. It is however reiterated that the Resolution plan in question meets the requirement specified in Sec 30(2) of the Code and the reasoned commercial decision of COC is neither discriminatory nor perverse - this bench is satisfied that the requirements as per the Code and regulations have been complied with. Moreover, the Resolution Plan has been approved by 100% voting share of the members of COC and has been submitted in compliance of Sec 30 of the Code for approval. In view of the discussions and as no infirmity have been brought out upon screening of the Resolution plan, this Adjudicating Authority hereby approve the Resolution plan under sub- section (1) of Section 31 of the Code.
The Resolution Applicant is allowed to remove and/or substitute the Monitoring Agency with prior approval of this Adjudicating Authority if the Monitoring Agency is unable to satisfactorily perform its responsibilities or breaches terms of its appointment - the Resolution Plan submitted by "M/s NCIRCLE Exim LLP" is found in conformity of Section 30 (2) of the Code and the same is approved - Application allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1365 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Criteria of payment of minimum wages - Temporary employees entitlement to regular pay-scale on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis - Employees of outsourced service providing agency - Employment as daily wages casual workers and they shall be paid minimum wages/salary equal to those employees who are working as daily wages casual workers - casual workers have been engaged through outsourcing agency - whether temporary engaged employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointee, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) are entitled to minimum of the regular pay-scale on account of their performing the same duties, which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis? - writ-petitioners are employees of outsourced service providing agency and secondly, a large number of casual workers have been engaged through outsourcing agency and they will also claim the same benefit of parity in their wages - HELD THAT:- In Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others [2019 (4) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT] Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, “The issue that was considered by this Court in Jagjit Singh [2020 (10) TMI 1323 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] is whether temporary employees (daily wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and likewise) are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scales on account of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged on regular basis against the sanctioned posts. After considering several judgments including the judgments of this Court in Tilak Raj (State of Haryana vs. Tilak Raj - 2003 (7) TMI 741 - SUPREME COURT]) and Surjit Singh (State of Punjab vs. Surjit Singh [2009 (8) TMI 1270 - SUPREME COURT]), this Court held that temporary employees are entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scales which are applicable to the regular employees holding the same post.”
In the light of the above discussions and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in passing the impugned judgment. We do not find any perversity and infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeals. All these three Special Appeals are liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1364 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court - correctness of ITAT's conclusion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the liability - HELD THAT:- The above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to ₹ 1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.
In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open
-
2021 (3) TMI 1363 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court - correctness of ITAT's conclusion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the liability - HELD THAT:- The above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to ₹ 1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.
In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open
-
2021 (3) TMI 1362 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court - correctness of ITAT's conclusion that the CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the liability - HELD THAT:- The above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to ₹ 1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.
In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open
-
2021 (3) TMI 1361 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seeking appointment of an arbitrator - Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - claim is in respect of a work order of April 7, 1982. According to the petitioner, the bills were not settled by the Railways - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The bills may or may not have been settled. However, a period in excess of three years elapsed from the date of the work order of April 7, 1982. Moreover, even going by the statement made in the petition, the work was executed upto May 28, 1986. Taking the date of knowledge of non-settlement of bills to be in 2013, then also, the petition in 2019 is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1360 - ITAT BANGALORE
Unpaid service tax - addition u/s 43B - assessee contended that the service tax unpaid was never claimed as an expenditure / deduction in the profit and loss account warranting disallowance u/s 43B - whether it has claimed as deduction in the profit and loss account was never examined by the AO and the CIT(A) without giving an opportunity to the A.O. by placing reliance on the additional evidence allowed the appeal of the assessee? - HELD THAT:- AR does not have any grievance for remitting the issue to the A.O. to examine whether the unpaid service tax has been claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account. This issue is restored to the files of the A.O. The A.O. is directed to examine whether the assessee had claimed the unpaid service tax as an expenditure / deduction in the profit and loss account. In the event the same is not claimed as a deduction / expenditure, the A.O. shall not invoke the provisions of section 43B in view of the judgment in the case of CIT v. Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (8) TMI 1096 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1359 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI
Classification of goods - underground mining trucks - to be classified under sub-heading 8430 50 10 as mining machinery excluding coal mining or under sub-heading 8704 10 10? - applicant has contended that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act do not include vehicle of a special type designed/intended for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises, and that goods used majorly in underground enclosed premises cannot be classified as a motor vehicle, and hence, 8704 heading is not applicable.
HELD THAT:- The question of referring to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act or any other statute would arise only when the terms of the tariff headings leave some ambiguity. As per Rule 6 of the general rules for the interpretation of import tariff, for legal purposes, the classification of goods in the sub-headings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those sub-headings and any related sub-heading notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above rules. Thus, the terms of the tariff headings and sub-headings is the primary determinant of classification.
The terms of the tariff headings and the accompanying explanatory notes leave no doubt that vehicles that transport goods, but are off-road vehicles are covered under CTH 8704 10. In the event, there is no necessity to refer to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act or to the product positioning in the advertisements of the supplier. It cannot be the case that extraneous criteria can take precedence over the terms of tariff headings and HSN explanatory notes - In fact, the HSN explanatory notes even elaborate that the goods under sub-heading 8704.10 can generally be distinguished from other vehicles for the transport of goods by the characteristics such as limited speed and area of operation, special earth-moving tyres, payload and that certain dumpers are specially designed for working in mines or tunnels.
The goods under consideration in this application are meant for movement/transport goods, carrying relatively high payloads, albeit over short distances within the premises of small and medium sized mines. They are not meant for working the earth. The terms of Heading 8704 10 and the accompanying chapter notes/HSN explanatory notes squarely cover the said goods - there are no merit in the applicant’s contention of the goods not being motor vehicles as the functional and design feature of the goods answer the requirements of CTH 8704 10.
Thus, it is held that underground mining trucks, one example of which is the SANDVIK TH 320, is classifiable as motor vehicles for transport of goods designed for usage in restricted conditions like a mine, under 8704 10 10.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1358 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
Seeking directions to the Corporate Debtor to provide relevant information with respect to the details of Allottees concerning Corporate Debtor's Real Estate Project - HELD THAT:- It is evident from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar [2021 (1) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] that nowhere in the said judgement the Corporate Debtor has been permitted to withhold the relevant information from the allottees, particularly when the same is otherwise directed to be published on the Website of the Company in terms of RERA Regulation. However, in the case before us admittedly project of the Corporate Debtor is not registered with RERA Authorities, therefore, as of now, there is no feasible way available to the Applicant-Financial Creditors to comply with the requirement of allottees to support his application under amended Section 7 of the IBC.
It is further noted that admittedly, in the present case, no Association of the allottees is stated to have been formed as well through which the Applicant could make any efforts for getting the information from the Corporate Debtor.
The home buyers in the given situation cannot be permitted to be left in lurch and at the mercy of such builders who are violating Law relating to the Real Estate Regulating Authority in the first instance and taking shelter of the same violation and denying the relevant information to the allottees - the Corporate Debtor are directed to provide all information - the compliance of these directions shall be made by the Corporate Debtor in 15 days' time, failing which appropriate punitive action may be initiated against the Corporate Debtor.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1357 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction towards Recovery of Bad Debts of Rural Branches - bad debts written-off relating to rural branches were not claimed as deduction in the earlier years since the credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural branches had always been more than the bad debts written off relating to rural branches - HELD THAT:- Before us, it is admitted position that similar issue arose before Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 [2020 (2) TMI 1350 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein the matter was decided in assessee’s favor subject to certain verification of by Ld. AO.Since issue is identical, respectfully following the above decision, this issue is principally decided in assessee’s favor subject to verification by Ld. AO on similar lines. This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - During survey on one of the branches of the assessee, it was found that the assessee did not deduct TDS in certain cases where interest credited / paid exceeded basic exemption limit. The failure to do so would attract disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- It has been submitted before us that evidence to the satisfaction of Ld. AO for reasons of non-deduction tax such as Form 15G/15H etc. could not be furnished since considerable period of time had lapsed. The Ld. AR submitted that tax was automatically deducted by the systems and hence the chances of non-deduction without adequate reasons were remote.
Upon due consideration of factual matrix, the bench deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to furnish requisite evidences before Ld. AO in support of non-deduction of tax at source or alternatively prove applicability of second proviso to Sec. 40(a)(ia). This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Applicability of Sec.115JB to the assessee Bank - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue of applicability of Section 115JB (prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012) to Banking Company governed by the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is squarely covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06[2019 (5) TMI 355 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - A copy of the same is on record. The Ld. DR is unable to controvert the same. Therefore, no fault could be found in the impugned order, in this regard.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1356 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors or not - Operational Debt or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The claim is for remittance of money collected from end customers, cost of inventory given for tolling/production not used or accounted for and supply of equipment (Machinery for Production Line). The claim is made by the applicant as operational debt - Remittance of payments from end customers will not fall under operational debt as it is not a claim in respect of the provision of goods and services. Claim towards the cost of inventory given for tolling/ production not used or accounted for will also not come under operational debt and in addition, there are disputes regarding quantum of allowable scrap and about wastages in conversion/ tolling between the parties before the issue of demand notice as shown in various mails enclosed with the application.
Further, there are disputes between parties among other things regarding scrap and other wastages on usage of inventory, functioning of some parts of equipments and on other claims of the applicant as shown in various mails attached in page no. 1468 to 1631 of the application and page no. 107 to 119 of the reply.
This Adjudicating Authority is of the view that the instant petition does not qualify for admission under Section 9 of the 1B Code and therefore, the same is rejected - Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1355 - ITAT DELHI
Exemption u/s 11 & 12 - charitable activity u/s 2(15) - assessee is carrying on the activities of medical relief for eradication and education of HIV AIDS patients - Whether the activity of the Assessee did not cease to be a ‘charitable acitivity’ for the purposes of Section 2(15) because the Assessee charged a ‘management fee’ for defraying its administrative expenses? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (7) TMI 1448 - DELHI HIGH COURT] assessee is a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act. It gives 85% of the donation received by it to the Government of India for HIV Aids and only 15% of its total donation is given to other societies for awareness and treatment of poor HIV Patients. The entire amount spent by the Assessee is through societies and trusts. It also runs its own project for the welfare of HIV and AIDS patients. In the above circumstances it has been held that merely because the Assessee charges management fees to defray the administrative costs it would not make its essential activity a business activity.- Decided against revenue.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1354 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowances of deduction claimed on account of interest expenditure claimed against interest income - HELD THAT:- The assessee has demonstrated from the record that the activity of the assessee of taking interest bearing loan and making advances to other parties is continued for the last so many years. The assessee in this activity has earned net positive interest income. In our view in such a case, there is no need to establish one to one nexus between each of the transaction of loan taken and loan advanced by the assessee. There transactions of taking unsecured loans otherwise has not been disputed by the Department.
Even the AO has not made any effort to verify the genuineness of the transaction by summoning the concerned parties either who have advanced loan to assessee or the parties have taken loan from the assessee. There is no allegation that the assessee has used the interest bearing funds for some other purposes. Under the circumstances, in our view, the assessee is entitled to set off the interest expenditure against the interest income earned by the assessee and the net of the same has rightly been offered by the assessee for taxation
Addition made by the Assessing Officer is ordered to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1353 - SUPREME COURT
Murder - mental cruelty and there was demand of dowry - offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the IPC - reversal of acquittal and thereby convicting the appellant - HELD THAT:- It is observed, after following the decision of this Court in the case of KULDEEP SINGH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. [1998 (12) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT], that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with.
Applying the law laid down by this Court in various decisions to the facts of the case on hand and the findings recorded by the High Court, the High Court has specifically observed and held that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court discarding and/or not believing the dying declaration (Exhibit P5) is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court has given cogent reasons while believing dying declaration (Exhibit P5) and has also considered in detail what is stated in the later dying declaration (Exhibit P5), vis-à-vis, the medical evidence and the injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, as such, the High Court has not committed any error in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, having found the finding recorded by the learned trial Court perverse.
A somewhat similar submission was made before this Court in the case of SANTOSH VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2015 (4) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT]. In the case before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused who poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze by matchstick that thereafter they tried to save the deceased by pouring water on her and therefore it was contended on behalf of the accused that by that conduct it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the deceased.
Therefore, after pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze, thereafter merely because the accused might have tried to extinguish the fire will not take the case out of the clutches of clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC. The act of the accused pouring kerosene on the deceased and thereafter setting her ablaze by matchstick is imminently dangerous which, in all probability, will cause death. Therefore, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Appeal dismissed.
........
|
