|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2170 Records
-
2019 (4) TMI 2058
Determination of lease - Sub-letting of premises - perpetual lease - no press activity carried out in demised premises - transfer within the prohibited category under clause XIII (3) of the lease agreement. - violation of dominant purpose for which the lease was granted - HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable within four weeks.
There shall be stay of the further proceedings pursuant to the High Court’s order.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2057
Clandestine removal - allegation of non production of finished goods, i.e. M/s TMT bars as per the norms fixed by the SAIL - HELD THAT:- An identical issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in M/S H.R. STEELS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST, ALWAR. [2018 (12) TMI 1950 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the show cause notice proposed to follow the output norm being obtained by the SAIL which is highly complex integrated plant having latest technology and infrastructure. It is not possible for the unit like appellant to have as same technology and infrastructure as available to the SAIL in this case and the production norm is treated to be identical. The department has not taken this much of the evidence into account by alleging the clandestine removal on the part of the appellant.
In the present appeal also, it is the allegation of the Department that the Appellant clandestinely removed the MS TMT/ bars, that would have been produced by the Appellant following the production norms as fixed by the SAIL for ISO companies - No evidence was led by the Department regarding use of raw material, electricity, sale of material or mode or transport nor any evidence was led to substantiate that the Appellant was using the same advanced technology as SAIL. The impugned demand is, therefore, not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2056
Exemption u/s 11 - rejecting the method of computing the income followed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- While going through Section 11 (4A) of the Act, which clearly barred that sub-Section (1) or sub-Section(2) or sub-Section (3) or sub-Section 3(A) shall not apply in relation to any income of a trust or an institution, being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or, as the case may be, institution, and separate books of account are maintained by such trust or institution in respect of such business.
In our considered opinion, although the separate books of account is attempted to be maintained for the business of the trust, but there is no material to show that it was incidental to the trust objective. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Section 11 (4A) of the Act will not be applicable to the case of the assessee.
Hybrid system of accounting adopted by the assessee - Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion in the last paragraph of the impugned order i.e. paragraph-6, which reads as under as far as ground no.4 is concerned, this ground is relevant only if the assessee’s changed method of accounting from this year is found to be acceptable. Since the changed method of accounting has not been accepted by the lower authorities and the assessee has not challenged this action of the lower authorities on this issue before us, we find no merit in this ground taken by the assessee before us and the same is also dismissed - in that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that question no.4 is not raised in its proper form.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2055
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the interest expenditure paid by the assessee bank on the fixed deposits of PTU - claim of the assessee that as PTU had submitted letters claiming that as its income was exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT Act, therefore, no TDS was liable to be deducted on the interest that was to be paid on its fixed deposits lying with the assessee bank - HELD THAT:- No concrete finding on the basis of any irrefutable documentary evidence has been placed on record either by the assessee or by the revenue in support or contradiction of the claim of PTU that its income was exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT Act. In case the income of the aforementioned university i.e. PTU is exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab), then in the backdrop of the CBDT Circular No. 4/2002; dated 16.07.2002 no obligation would be cast upon the assessee for deducting tax at source on the interest paid on the fixed deposits under consideration.
We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations restore the matter to the file of the A.O, who is directed to conclusively verify the aforesaid claim of the assessee that as to whether the income of PTU was exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT Act, or not. Needless to say, the assessee shall in the course of the set aside proceeding be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and therein substantiate its aforesaid claim. Apart there from, in case if the verification made by the A.O reveals that the income of PTU was not exempt under Sec. 10(23C)(iiiab), but the latter had furnished its return of income under Sec. 139 and had taken into account the amount of interest income in such return of income and paid tax on the same, then as per the 2nd proviso of Sec. 40(a)(ia) read with the 1st proviso to Sec. 201(1) of the IT Act, the aforesaid amount would not be liable to be disallowed under Sec. 40(a)(ia)
Addition on account of provision for leave encashment and interest accrued on previous investments - HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) that as the actual premium has been paid by the assessee, therefore, the said statutory provision which comes into play only where the actual premium has not been paid but a deduction has been claimed, would however not be applicable in the present case as the aforesaid premium has been paid by the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee had paid a premium of Rs. 45,53,677/- for taking the Group Insurance Leave Encashment Scheme Policy during the year. In our considered view, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers [2000 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] if a business liability arises in the accounting year, then the deduction has to be allowed though the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. Rather, what would be relevant is the certainty in respect of the incurring of the liability while considering its allowability as a deduction during the year under consideration - We thus finding ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) who had deleted the addition made by the A.O on account of provisions for leave encashment, uphold his order to the said extent
Addition on account of interest accrued on Group Leave Encashment Scheme Policy - We are in agreement with the view taken by the CIT(A) that no addition as regards the said amount could have been made, as the same represents the accretion to the policy amount which had been reinvested in the policy itself and thus to that extent reduced the amount of policy premium payable by the assessee bank. In fact, as the aforesaid interest accrued on Group Leave Encashment Scheme Policy had not been debited in the profit and loss account and stands reinvested in the policy, therefore, the same cannot be added as the income of the assessee. In case if the aforesaid interest would have been credited as income of the assessee, then the same would had also been eligible for a corresponding deduction as having been reinvested in the said policy, therein resulting to no addition on the said count in the hands of the assessee. We thus finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who had rightly deleted the addition on account of interest accrued on the Group Leave Encashment Scheme Policy, uphold his order to the said extent. The Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are dismissed.
Provision for bad and doubtful debts under Sec. 36(1)(viia) - A.O had disallowed amount on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee against standard assets on the ground that the said provision was made against assets which were of good quality and was in the nature of contingent liability - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue as regards the allowability of deduction of provision for bad and doubtful debts made against standard assets had been decided by the Tribunal in the assesses own case for A.Y. 2008-09 [2016 (6) TMI 1443 - ITAT AMRITSAR]. We thus are of the considered view that as the provision for bad and doubtful debts against standard assets is covered in the main provisions of Sec. 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) who we find had rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O on the said count. The Grounds of Appeal No. 4 to 6 raised by the revenue are dismissed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2054
The Supreme Court in 2019 (4) TMI 2054 - SC Order, with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran presiding, issued orders in two cases: W.P.(Crl) No. 118/2019 and SLP(Crl) No. 3647/2019. No coercive steps against the petitioner in W.P.(Crl) No. 118/2019, and exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order in SLP(Crl) No. 3647/2019 was allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2053
Disallowance of interest - Allowable business expenditure or not? - Disallowance of discount claim - addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case [2019 (4) TMI 414 - ITAT AHMEDABAD]The Revenue has not got any contrary binding precedent by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2052
Disallowance of proportionate interest u/s 24(b) - Loan borrowed for acquisition of property - AO was of the opinion that the transaction of the assessee is in the nature of slump sale and referred to the assets and liabilities whereas the learned AR heavily contested that it is in the nature of take over of the asset along with liability and does not come under the purview of slump sale - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the assessee has been claiming interest in the earlier assessment year and it was accepted in the scrutiny assessment and there is no dispute with respect to acquisition of asset availing loan and payment of interest. The acquisition made by the assessee cannot be considered as slump sale as the assessee has discharged the liability of other sister concern and obtained the property on loan which is not disputed by the Revenue.
Since the assessee has been offering income from house property and claiming interest income from earlier years which is not disputed and accepted by the revenue and fits into legal proposition of claim u/s 24(b) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this ground and direct the AO to allow the claim made by the assessee as deduction from income from house property. The ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b) - HELD THAT:- We found the submissions of the learned AR supported with judicial decisions PENTAGRAM PROPERTIES PRIVATE [2011 (8) TMI 1212 - ITAT MUMBAI] AND PEEPUL TREE PROPERTIES P. LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 860 - ITAT MUMBAI] are realistic. The learned AR also substantiated with judicial decisions which cannot be overlooked. Accordingly, following the ratio of the above decisions, we are inclined to allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee on this ground and direct the AO to allow deduction of pre-closure charges on term loan and processing charges of new term loan u/s 24(b) of the Act.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2051
Nature of expenditure - amount incurred on account of research & development expenses - capital expenditure or revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee in the instant case was already in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceuticals and the expenditure was incurred in the regular course of business i.e., for the purpose of manufacturing pharmaceuticals, therefore, no new asset is being developed and the expenditure in our opinion has to be treated as revenue in nature. The order of the CIT(A) on this issue is accordingly set aside and the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2050
Disallowance u/s 14A for determining the Book Profits u/s 115JB - AO was of the opinion that in determining the Book Profits disallowance u/s 14A was excluded - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the disallowance u/s 14A shall not be considered for computation of Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act. See VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] - Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and allowed grounds of appeal of the assessee.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2049
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - acquittal of the accused - discharge of liability or debt or not - HELD THAT:- The findings of both the Courts below that the initiation of proceeding is bad in law because the notice sent upon the respondent No.2 was bad in law due to absence of signature of learned Advocate in the said notice is erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside.
None of the findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court as discreetly mentioned in the preceding paragraphs that the petitioner nowhere has stated the exact date on which he gave the alleged loan or there is no specification of denomination of the currency note used in the loan transaction and the absence of endorsement of the advocate are bad in law - the plea of the respondent No.2 that he lost three cheques leading him to make G.D. entry with the police station is not believable story and the both the learned Courts below had committed serious error in appreciating the evidence of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2.
It cannot be said that merely because the amount advanced was not paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 269-SS of Income Tax Act, will make the proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act bad in law.
In case in hand, it is found that the respondent No.2 in course of trial has tried to give a plausible explanation that he lost the aforestated cheques and he also made a missing diary, but, his that effort has failed to persuade this Court and his explanations in this regard are far from plausible explanation, which is required to rebut the evidence and the initial presumption that the cheques were issued by him. So, the explanation given by respondent No.2 in course of trial appears to be difficult to accept in the fact of the case - In the present case, according to Trial Court, the demand notice did not contain the signature of leanred Advocate which created a question mark about the validity of said demand notice served upon the accused. Here, the Ext-B contains signature of the complainant himself, so it is valid notice according to section 94 of N.I. Act and over and above the accused actually had received that.
The explanation appended to Section 138 explains the meaning of the expression “debt or other liability‟. The provision includes not only debt but other liability as well. The word “liability‟ denotes the state of being liable. The debt or other liabilities for the purpose of attracting the provision are to be legally enforceable. Section 138 treats dishonored cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. In the trial, the accused had admitted that the signature on the impugned Cheques were indeed his own. Once this fact is acknowledged, Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I. Act mandates a presumption that the cheques pertained to a legally enforceable debt or liability. This presumption is of a rebuttal nature and onus is then on the accused to raise a probable defence.
The complainant has successfully made out a case of dishonour of cheques as his legally enforceable debt arises, the conviction is to be recorded against the respondent No.2. i.e. Sri Subrata Chowdhury and accordingly, said Sri Subrata Chowdhury is hereby convicted for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - It is made clear that if the payment as directed is not paid within the said stipulated period of six months, then, the respondent No.2 i.e., Sri Subrata Chowdhury has to surrender before the Officer-in-charge, West Agartala, police station just on the date of expiry of the said six months, otherwise, the petitioner-complainant may approach the appropriate police authority to ensure the arrest of the respondent No.2 to suffer the sentence.
The instant revision petition is allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2048
Insurance claim - Seeking direction to insurer to pay seventy-five percent of the amount awarded by the SCDRC - HELD THAT:- The NCDRC entered a finding that since the previous insurance policy had been enclosed with the proposal form, the insurer could, upon further enquiry, have learnt of the status of the claims under the earlier policy. The NCDRC considered the exception to Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and held that the insurer could have easily verified the claims submitted by the insured under the previous policy. It was thus held that the insurer cannot deny the benefit of insurance on account of the information not having been disclosed in the proposal form. However, the NCDRC noted that the insured had not expressly disclosed the previous claim and in consequence, deducted twenty-five of the amount payable under the contract of insurance.
This line of reasoning of the NCDRC is flawed. Insurance is governed by the principle of utmost good faith, which imposes a duty of disclosure on the insured with regard to material facts.
In Satwant Kaur Sandhu v New India Assurance Co. Ltd [2009 (7) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT], a two-judge Bench of this Court held that under a contract of insurance, the insured is under a “solemn obligation” to make a true and full disclosure of information asked for in the proposal form - It was further held there is a clear presumption that any information sought in the proposal form is a “material fact”.
The burden cannot be cast upon the insurer to follow up on an inadequate disclosure by conducting a line of enquiry with the previous insurer in regard to the nature of the claims, if any, that were made under the earlier insurance policy. On the contrary, it was the plain duty of the respondent while making the proposal to make a clear and specific disclosure. The insurance policy with New India Assurance Company Limited was for the period from 15 November 2004 to 14 November 2005. The excavator remained uninsured from 15 November 2005 until 10 October 2006. The case of the respondent was that during that period, it was under repair. This fact, together with the receipt of the earlier insurance claim, was material to the decision of the insurer on whether to accept the proposal for insurance - it is evident on a bare reading of the proposal form that material information which was required to be disclosed was suppressed by the insured. The proposal form contains a declaration of the insured that the statements which are made are true to the knowledge of the proposer and the declaration forms the basis of the contract with the insurer.
The decision of the SCDRC to allow the claim was erroneous and the NCDRC equally erred in affirming the decision.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2047
Disallowance in respect of ESOP scheme - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd [2014 (7) TMI 165 - ITAT DELHI] and in Biocon Ltd. [2013 (8) TMI 629 - ITAT BANGALORE] we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of ESOP expenses. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2046
Amount due to one or the other Financial Creditor or the Operational Creditor - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Tribunal wanted to understand with regard to each Amber Entity the amount due to one or the other ‘Financial Creditor’ or the ‘Operational Creditor’. The learned Counsel will handover the same on 16.04.2019 at least with regard to the four Amber Entities in question. They will also try to prepare a similar chart with regard to rest of the nine Amber Entities by the same date. The ‘Financial Creditor’ and the ‘Operational Creditor’ of these four companies will also handover their respective charts showing the amount payable and matured and the amount, if any, they have generated from Provident Fund or Pension Fund or any other Fund, e.g. Gratuity Fund or Superannuation Fund etc. by the same date, i.e., 16.04.2019 along with relevant provisions of the contract, which should not be more than two pages.
With regard to the rest of the companies, if any other company has been declared as ‘Green Entity’ or ‘Amber Entity’ or ‘Red Entity’, the Appellant– Union of India will also file an affidavit in regard to such company.
Post these Appeals ‘for orders’ on 16.04.2019 at 04:00 PM.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2045
Interpretation of principle of prospective overruling - Predicament of candidates consequent to conflicting opinions in different decisions of the High Court - award of bonus marks to candidates seeking appointment to the post of Primary School Teachers in Zila Parishad of various districts in the State of Rajasthan during the year 1998-99 - HELD THAT:- A number of impleadment applications have been filed by aspirants anxiously waiting and hoping of favourable outcome in the foreclosed and covered litigation. They cannot succeed and these applications are dismissed. It is informed that there are a large number of vacant posts and, therefore, it has been contended that the benefit should be extended.
The candidates who had not filed writ petitions on or before November 17, 1999 would not be entitled to appointment upon recalculation of marks by exclusion of bonus marks from the marks of the selected candidates. The direction would not apply to individual cases where the principle of res judicata would apply, i.e. wherein the decision of the Single Judge or the Division Bench has become final since it was not challenged before the Division Bench or before this Court.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2044
Sanction of the Resolution Plan - Sections 30(6) and Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, read with regulation 39(4) of the IBBI (Insolvency Regulation Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Resolution Plan has been filed by the RP and is duly annexed with form H and an affidavit. It is submitted that after exclusion of certain days as admissible on account of absence of any RP or pendency before the adjudicating authority, the resolution plan has been filed within 270 days of its initiation. The RP has certified that the Resolution Plan has been examined and found to be strictly in compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 30(2) of the Code.
On-going through the plan, and in terms of Section 31 of the Code this Bench is satisfied that the resolution plan as unanimously approved by the Committee of Creditors under sub-section (4) of section 30 meets the requirements as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 30. In view of the same, there is no legal impediment in confirming the same by this Adjudicating Authority - The resolution plan is approved which shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan - moratorium imposed upon the assets of the Corporate Debtor shall cease to have any effect in terms of Section 31(3)(a) of the Code.
Application allowed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2043
Classification of services - Business Support Service or not - agreements with the distributors/sub distributors such as Mukta Arts Limited, PVR Pictures Ltd, UTV Software Communications Ltd, Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt Ltd etc. for display of the films/movies at the multiplex cinema screens - agreements are for revenue sharing with the distributors/ sub distributors - HELD THAT:- The appellant has been screening various films in their multiplex on behalf of the film distributors such as Mukta Arts Limited, PVR Pictures Ltd, UTV Software Communications Ltd, Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt Ltd etc. As per the agreement entered into by the appellant and the various distributors/ sub distributors, the revenue generated from the selling of the tickets of movies was shared between the appellant and the various distributors in percentage terms - All the revenue receipts have duly been reflected in the books of accounts of the appellants. At the same time the revenue which has been paid by the appellant to the distributors/ sub distributors has been reflected and expenditure towards purchase of film rights for screening of the movies have also been reflected in the books of accounts.
As per the agreement entered into between the appellant and the distributors/ sub distributors, both the parties have mutually agreed to work together, wherein the appellant being the owner of the theatre is exhibiting the movies provided by the distributors/ sub distributors. However, the copy rights of the film are retained by the distributors themselves. The appellant provides the theatre and other facilities such as arrangement of projector and other related equipments to screen the film. It is found that under this arrangement, both the parties are working for mutual benefit of each other. They are not providing any service to any other party whereas they are providing services to self. Also, the revenue generated by the appellant which is shared by the appellant and the distributors is from the sale of movie tickets to the customers and from this revenue he is also making payment to the distributors in spite of the fact that copy right of exhibiting the movie has not been passed on to him. This purely reflect that a partnership between the distributor and the appellant exist to display the movie in the appellants theater - in such a situation the element of service from appellant to the distributor does not exist and rather we find that it is a service to himself.
The issue is no longer res integra as it has been already decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/S PVS MULTIPLEX INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I [2017 (11) TMI 156 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that there is no dispute of fact that the appellant have been screening films in their multiplex on Revenue Sharing basis, which is undisputed finding recorded by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax for Screening of Films and payments to distributors in their theatre - the facts of the present matter are identical to the above mentioned decision, therefore, the above decision is very much applicable to the present matter also.
The activity undertaken by the appellant is not classifiable under service tax category of the “Business Support Service‟ and therefore, not taxable - there is no merit in the impugned order-in original - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2042
Benefit of doctrine of mutuality - Addition on account of guest fees, hire of rooms and hire charges in respect of club lawns - Disallowance u/s 57(iii) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- The issues in appeal are covered, in favour of the assessee, by the series of decisions of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case. [2013 (1) TMI 1031 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], [2010 (12) TMI 1334 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer, but could not point out any binding judicial precedent contrary to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel as referred above. In this view of the matter, and, respectfully following the decisions of co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case - Accordingly, relief granted by the CIT(A) stands confirmed and approved. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2041
Permission for withdrawal of Advance Ruling application - Levy of GST - sale of tobacco leaves received from farmers made by Commission Agent in an auction - turnover is less than ₹ 20 Lakh - HELD THAT:- In light of the plea that the applicant himself applied for cancellation of his registration under GST, and the jurisdictional authority confirmed the cancelation in Form REG. 19 dt 27/2/2019 with effect from 31.01.2019, and as the ruling is binding only on the applicant and the jurisdiction authority, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, disposed the appeal as dismissed.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2040
Transfer petition - Territorial Jurisdiction - seeking transfer of petition both pending before the Special Judge for CBI, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, Maharashtra, to the Special Court CBI at Ahmedabad, Gujarat - HELD THAT:- The trial is going on in respect of the criminal cases at Serial Nos.1 and 2 above at Mumbai, Maharashtra, and the cases at Serial Nos.3 to 7 are under investigation at Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
It is not disputed that the criminal cases bearing SC No.63/2017 and SC No.77/2017 have arisen in respect of the offences allegedly committed in regard to loans advanced by the consortium of Banks to the petitioner Sunil K. Kakkad and the companies headed by him. In each case, the loan was disbursed at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The most of the evidence are within the jurisdiction of the court at Ahmedabad - it is deemed expedient to transfer the cases bearing SC No.63/2017 and SC No.77/2017, to the Special Court CBI at Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
The Special Judge for CBI, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, Maharashtra, shall forthwith transmit the record of the aforesaid cases to the Special Court CBI at Ahmedabad, Gujarat - the transfer petitions stand allowed accordingly.
-
2019 (4) TMI 2039
Seeking quashing of Look-out Circular - petitioner submits that the petitioner shall gave an undertaking to the Court that he shall continue to join investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer and further that he shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence any witness in any manner - HELD THAT:- Since, the petitioner has been regularly joining investigation, there is no justification in keeping the present Look-out Circular dated 16.05.2018 alive. The same be recalled by the issuing authority.
Certain conditions imposed - the Trial Court is directed to return the passport of the petitioner - petition disposed off.
............
|
9911796707
