|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 855 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 1004 - SUPREME COURT
Nationalized banks Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 - Whether the employees (having completed 20 years of service) of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United Bank of India) who had opted for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purpose of the said Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995? - each of the employees had completed 20 years of service - optees have been given retiral benefits by the respective banks under VRS 2000 save and except the benefit of pension under Regulation 29(5) - Their representation in this regard did not yield any result and that necessitated them to approach various High Courts for redressal of their grievance.
The views of High Courts differ. Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that employees are entitled to add a period of qualifying service not exceeding five years in terms of the Regulation 29(5); the total qualifying service rendered by an employee seeking voluntary retirement in any case shall not exceed 33 years. With regard to the amendment in Regulation 28, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that by the said amendment, the provision contained in Regulation 29(5) of the Regulations does not get affected so as to disentitle the employees the benefit provided therein.
HELD THAT:- Any interpretation of the terms of VRS 2000, although contractual in nature, must meet the test of fairness. It has to be construed in a manner that avoids arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the public sector banks who brought out VRS 2000 with an objective of rightsizing its manpower. The banks decided to shed surplus manpower. By formulation of the Special Scheme (VRS 2000), the banks intended to achieve its objective of rationalizing its force as they were overstaffed. The Special Scheme was, thus, oriented to lure the employees to go in for voluntary retirement. In this background, the consideration that was to pass between the parties assumes significance and a harmonious construction to the Scheme and Pension Regulations, therefore, has to be given.
The amendment to Regulation 28 can, at best, be said to have been intended to cover the employees with 15 years of service or more but less than 20 years of service. This intention is reflected from the communication dated September 5, 2000 sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) to the Personnel Advisor, Indian Banks' Association.
It is pertinent to bear in mind that interpretation clause of VRS-2000 states that the words and expressions used in the scheme but not defined and defined in the Rules/Regulations shall have the same meaning respectively assigned to them under Rules/Regulations. The Scheme does not define the expression `retirement' or `voluntary retirement'.
We have, therefore, to fall back on the definition of `retirement' given in Regulation 2(y) whereunder voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 is considered to be retirement. Regulation 29 uses the expression, `voluntary retirement under these Regulations'. Obviously, for the purposes of the Scheme, it has to be understood to mean with necessary changes in points of details. Section 23 of the Contract Act has no application to the present fact situation.
It was vehemently contended on behalf of the banks that VRS 2000 was a self-contained Scheme and it provided for special benefits in the form of ex-gratia. It was submitted that ex-gratia was not available to the employees claiming voluntary retirement under Pension Regulations and it was because of that, that Scheme did not envisage granting of pension benefits under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, along with the payment of ex-gratia which was a substantial amount.
On behalf of banks it was submitted that the employees, having taken benefits under the scheme (VRS 2000), are estopped from raising any issue that their entitlement to pension would not be covered by amended Regulation 28. It was suggested that the employees having taken benefit of the scheme cannot insist for pension under Regulation 29(5). O.P. Swarnakar [2002 (12) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT] was relied upon in this regard wherein it has been held that an employee, having taken the ex-gratia payment, or any other benefit under the scheme cannot be allowed to resile from the scheme.
In so far as the present group of appeals is concerned, the employees are not seeking to resile from the Scheme. They are actually seeking enforcement of the clause in the Scheme that provides that the optees will be eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. According to them, they are entitled to the benefits of Regulation 29(5). In our considered view, plea of estoppel is devoid of any substance; as a matter of fact it does not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had completed 20 years of service and were pension optees and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted by the banks are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contrary view expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position.
Whether the concerned employees are entitled to interest on unpaid pension? - HELD THAT:- Although it has been held by us that the subject employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995, but we are satisfied that any award of interest on unpaid pension would not be in the interest of justice. It is so because different High Courts did not have unanimous judicial opinion on the issue. Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the contention of the employees with regard to applicability of Regulation 29(5) to the optees who had completed 20 years of service while the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and a single Judge of the Kerala High Court took exactly an opposite view. The stance of the banks, although found not meritorious, cannot be said to be totally frivolous. We, accordingly, hold that the subject employees are not entitled to interest on unpaid pension.
Therefore, the appeals preferred by the banks must fail and are dismissed while the appeals of the employees deserve to be allowed and are allowed accordingly. The respective banks shall now recalculate, within one month from today, the pension payable to the concerned employees by giving them the benefit of Regulation 29(5). However, the employees shall not be entitled to interest on unpaid pension. The pending applications in these appeals stand disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1003 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Disallowance of expenditure - purchases of raw material - genuineness of transactions not proved - manufacturer of tractor lights - CIT(A) allowed the appeal and remanded case back to AO for fresh consideration - second round AO allowed the expenses claimed in respect of payments made to five out of the ten parties - remaining five parties it was found that three parties could not be served at given addresses but other two parties who had appeared - Tribunal has accepted the version of the assessee, believing in the genuineness of the transactions namely, purchase of raw material from five parties.
HELD THAT:- The Tribunal took into consideration some other factors as well and the cumulative effect of all these factors clearly established that they were genuine suppliers who had received payment by means of Account Payee cheques. The Tribunal rightly concluded that they were small dealers/job workers and were mainly dealing with the assessee only. It is also pointed out by the Tribunal that transactions were entered into with these suppliers during the financial year ending on 31-3-1996 and an inquiry was conducted in the year 2002 and it was not unusual for such small parties to have left in between. Thus, these two cases are at par with those in respect of which expenditure is allowed.
The reason for disallowing expenditure in respect of other four parties was that when the notices were sent they were not available. we are of the opinion that even in their absence the assessee had produced sufficient material to show payments, namely the bank accounts of such parties. We are constrained to note that if the summons are not issued to those parties or the same could not be served at the given addresses, AO could have obtained their addresses from the banks as the bank statements were produced and could have made an endeavour to serve those parties at the said addresses.
That the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is plausible and based on evidence. There is no perversity in this finding. Hardly any question of law arises which needs to be determined in the present appeal.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as being devoid of any merits.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1002 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Officer to verify the same. Directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim could be given in exercise of power under section 263, but if the very jurisdiction of the CIT did not exist for the reason that there was no loss to the Revenue by the reason of non-application of mind of the Assessing Officer, then there is lack of jurisdiction. Therefore the direction of the CIT cannot be said to be within the parameters of section 263. One would have appreciated, if the CIT on verification had found that the payment had not been made within the time allowed under section 43B. So, however, no such finding had been recorded. We are therefore of the considered view that one of the twin conditions under section 263, as required, is not satisfied, even in respect of the provision of ₹ 8 crores. The order of the CIT under section 263 is therefore, not justified. The same is accordingly cancelled. 10. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 20.03.2009.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1001 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co.’s case (supra) as well as in Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh’s case (supra). Having given our thoughtful consideration, and in view of the factual position explained in paragraph 8 , we are satisfied that it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue so as to treat the sale of agricultural land at the hands of the respondent-assessee as falling under the head "Profit and gain from business and profession". We, therefore, uphold the determination rendered by the CIT vide an order dated 24-10-2007 , as also order dated 26-6-2008 passed by the ITAT, to the effect that the earnings of the respondent-assessee from sale transaction of agricultural land is liable to be treated as a "Capital gain". 12. For the reasons recorded here-in-above, we find no merit in the instant appeal, and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1000 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ; and (ii) transit breakages while computing profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed these two liabilities holding that the amount was set aside for meeting unascertained liabilities and had to be added back. CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer, 17. We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions. As regards the provision for doubtful bad debts, the issue is now covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CTI vs. HCL Comnet Systems 305 ITR 409 (SC). We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to reduce the provision for bad debts while computing the book profit under section 115J. As regards transit breakage is concerned, we have already held that the provision is not made on scientific basis and, therefore, is not an allowable deduction and consequently the order of the CIT (Appeals) is to be upheld. We hold accordingly. 18. In the result, all the appeals are disposed of as above.
-
2009 (3) TMI 999 - SC ORDER
EOU - refund of credit on inputs - Tribunal hold that there is nothing in the Cenvat Credit Rules which prohibits 100% EOUs availing Cenvat credit. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for refund of credit availed by the exporter where they do not utilize the goods as inputs for manufacture of 100% export - decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Versus ANZ INTERNATIONAL [2008 (6) TMI 155 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that EOU is entitled to take credit on the duty of the inputs procured indigenously and when they were not in a position to utilize the same, they are entitled for refund - Held that: - decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (3) TMI 998 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by a learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases for offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act') is unsustainable?
-
2009 (3) TMI 997 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the deed of sale deed of sale was executed as a security for the amount of money lending of ₹ 50,000/- and was not intended to be acted upon as a sale deed?
-
2009 (3) TMI 996 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n Reddy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 995 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... these writ petitions are made absolute and orders which have not been complied with so far be complied with now; (iii) In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the State have to hold counselling from the waiting list of students of RPMT -2008 and the petitioners who stand in merit are entitled for admission and process be completed before commencement of RPMT -2009; (iv) It will be for the State of Rajasthan, if necessary then in consultation with the MCI and University, to sort out the difficulties and to run the regular courses of MBBS batch 2008. (v) Although the petitioners have suffered much mental agony for the wrongs committed by the respondents but taking lenient view in the matter, I am not inclined to impose cost/penal cost upon the respondents. However, I leave the matter upon the State, University and the MCI to take appropriate action. S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 508/2008 35. In view of relief No. (ii) the contempt petition stands disposed of.
-
2009 (3) TMI 994 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... is not correct on the part of the appellants to claim that they had paid duty and interest voluntarily. She submits that duty and interest was paid after 414 days and that too after the same was pointed by the audit. Therefore, she justified the penalty imposed. 2. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. In view of the fact that the goods were accounted for and cleared under Central Excise invoices and there was flood on 03.8.2004 in which records were lost, the appellant cannot be found fault with for delay in payment. I note that the Jaw on the issue of penalty stands decided by Saurashtra Cement Ltd. referred above, in which case it has held that in cases of delay in payment of duty, it is the provisions of Rule 27 which have to be invoked. As the said provision provides for makes penalty of ₹ 5,000/-, I reduce the penalty to ₹ 5,000/-. But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty the appeal is otherwise rejected. Pronounced in Court.
-
2009 (3) TMI 993 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... operate as a restrictive covenant within the meaning of Rule 21 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act,1957? b Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, agreement dated 27/3/1982 between the trustees of Smt. Pushpavati Kantilal Family Trust No.3 and Master Rajal Prafulbhai, one of the beneficiaries, would operate as a binding document qua the assessee, the other beneficiary, despite distribution of the assets by the Trustees ?"
-
2009 (3) TMI 992 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court was justified in directing the state government to release grants to CAMUL, so as to enable CAMUL to pay the salary and other emoluments of its employees?
-
2009 (3) TMI 991 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lier orders. 9. The Trade Tax Tribunal has recorded that in the previous year, the diesel engines were included in agricultural implements and therefore the assessee issued Form C to produce the diesel engines under bonafide belief that this item was also included under its registration. 10. The Tribunal has taken a view that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee nor was there any false representation, while issuing Form C to produce the diesel engine. 11. Mens rea is one of the main grounds under which the penalty could be imposed under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. 12. The Tribunal has therefore rightly taken the view that it could not be said that there was any false or wrongful intention to make any false representation on the part of the assessee while issuing Form C to produce diesel engines. Therefore I see no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal. As such no question of law arises. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 990 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue or as suggested by the assessee, the taxable component would be the same. The question therefore, need not be considered and gone into. In so far as second question is concerned, the tribunal recorded a finding of fact. That expenses has been incurred on advertisement. In the light of that, this is purely a question of fact. The question of law would not arise. In so far as third question is concerned, it is an additional ground raised by the assessee which has been referred to the A.O. for consideration according to law. Considering the above, in our opinion, the appeal does not survive which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 989 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue that LDPE and HDPE granules are not a finished product and if these are finished products, they are obviously made of plastic and hence are necessarily plastic goods. The entry contained in Section 35-B clearly spells out that the entry takes within its ambit all types of goods which are made of plastic. It is not disputed that the HDPE and LDPE granules are finished product and are made of plastic. The only exception under this entry is that of high density propline ethyl woven bags. The entry reads as under - " 35B Plastic goods except HDPE woven bags." On a true and proper interpretation of entry 35 B of the notification No. SO46/H.A.20/73/S.15/96 dated 31.3.1996, the tribunal was correct in law in holding the HDPE and LDPE granules manufactured and sold by the respondent are plastic goods falling under the said entry. Therefore, in the final analysis, the question of law raised in the instant case is decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2009 (3) TMI 988 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n in the case of KR.M. Marine Exports Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Mad.), (2007) 288 ITR 151. In that decision it was held that freezing and processing charges would definitely form part of one of the components of business profits, as the said activity would have a direct and immediate nexus to the activity of export. The said decision also pertained to assessment year, 1994-95. Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the said decision of the High Court has not been challenged by the Revenue and has thus, attained finality. In view of the above, we decline to entertain the petition on the said question. Regarding question No.3, we find that the said question does not arise from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Perhaps for this reason the High Court has not dealt with that question. In that view of the matter no fault can be found with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2009 (3) TMI 987 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... as to who was the real manufacturer of the items in question. Depending on the answers to the above issues the Tribunal will then decide the question regarding applicability of the Exemption Notification. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside, the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (3) TMI 986 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Intermediate products - capital goods - destruction of inputs - Held that: - it is not disputed that the fire and consequent destroying of the inputs used in the intermediate products and the capital goods were accidental - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (3) TMI 985 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rder of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders in accordance with law. The question of applicability of proviso to section 11AC will also be considered and examined by the Tribunal while deciding the matter afresh. The Tribunal shall pass fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Appeal and Civil Application stand disposed of accordingly.
............
|
