|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1599 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1581
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure on telephone at guest house.
2. Disallowance of expenditure on community welfare and rural development.
3. Disallowance of commission paid.
4. Disallowance on account of contribution to Marine Navy Officers Welfare Fund.
5. Claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC and 80HHE.
6. Addition of estimated amount out of conference expenditure as entertainment expenditure.
7. Charging of interest u/s. 234B.
8. Club membership expenses.
9. Deletion of addition on account of unutilized MODVAT credit.
10. Deletion of addition on account of excise duty on finished goods at bonded warehouse.
11. Deletion of addition on account of expenditure on construction of jetty at Gujarat Cement Plant.
12. Deletion of addition on account of unforeseeable losses in computation of work-in-progress on construction account.
13. Deletion of addition on account of expenses on Cement Plants.
14. Deletion of addition on account of interest and commitment charges in respect of borrowings made for Cement Projects.
15. Deletion of addition on account of expenses incurred on setting up of Nasik Glass Works.
16. Deletion of addition on account of interest on commitment charges in respect of borrowings made for Nasik Glass Works.
17. Deletion of addition on account of contribution for laying power line at Kovaya and Tadpatri Cement Plants.
18. Deletion of addition on account of expenditure incurred on mining lease.
19. Deletion of addition on account of expenditure incurred on mining.
20. Claim of deduction u/s. 80M.
21. Deletion of addition on account of salary, administration etc., to earn interest on tax-free bonds.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of expenditure on telephone at guest house:
The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of expenditure on telephone at the guest house amounting to Rs.31,44,435/-, following its own decision in the assessee's case for earlier years. Ground no.1 was dismissed.
2. Disallowance of expenditure on community welfare and rural development:
The Tribunal deleted the additions made on this account, following its earlier orders in the assessee's case. Ground no.2 was allowed.
3. Disallowance of commission paid:
The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of commission paid amounting to Rs.2,40,16,498/-, following its own decision in the assessee's case for earlier years. Ground no.3 was dismissed.
4. Disallowance on account of contribution to Marine Navy Officers Welfare Fund:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.6,32,725/-, following its earlier decision in the assessee's case. Ground no.4 was allowed.
5. Claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC and 80HHE:
a) Inclusion of scrap sales and other items of miscellaneous income in the total turnover was allowed.
b) Set off of loss of export of trading goods against profit on export of manufactured goods was dismissed.
c) Computation of indirect cost attributable to trading exports was dismissed as it was not pressed.
Ground nos. 5 & 6 were partly allowed.
6. Addition of estimated amount out of conference expenditure as entertainment expenditure:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the disallowance by 50%, providing relief of Rs.12,50,000/-. Ground no.7 was partly allowed.
7. Charging of interest u/s. 234B:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest as per law. Ground no.8 was dismissed.
8. Club membership expenses:
The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the club membership expenses amounting to Rs.69,70,827/-, following its earlier decision in the assessee's case. Ground no.1 was dismissed.
9. Deletion of addition on account of unutilized MODVAT credit:
The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the addition made on account of unutilized MODVAT credit, following its earlier decision in the assessee's case. Ground no.2 was dismissed.
10. Deletion of addition on account of excise duty on finished goods at bonded warehouse:
The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs.7,50,000/-, following its earlier decision in the assessee's case. Ground no.3 was dismissed.
11. Deletion of addition on account of expenditure on construction of jetty at Gujarat Cement Plant:
The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs.9,58,
-
2013 (10) TMI 1580
Issues Involved:1. Whether the power u/s 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, can be invoked after the initiation of criminal prosecution. Summary:Issue 1: Invocation of Power u/s 633(2) Post Prosecution InitiationThe main company petition C.P. No. 297 of 2013 was filed u/s 633 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the Managing Director and Director of Meta Films (India) Ltd., seeking relief from alleged acts of default and liability. The petition was filed against Vis-ram Financial Services Private Ltd., who had initiated a criminal complaint. Another similar petition, C.P. No. 296 of 2013, was also filed by the same petitioners against the Registrar of Companies. Both petitions sought interim stay of criminal prosecution, which was granted on 19.9.2013. Vis-ram Financial Services then filed Comp. A. No. 1072 of 2013, seeking dismissal of the main petition on the ground that Section 633(2) can only be invoked before the initiation of criminal prosecution. The court had to decide the sole legal issue of whether the power u/s 633(2) can be invoked post-prosecution initiation. Section 633(1) allows the court hearing the case to relieve an officer from criminal liability if they acted honestly and reasonably. Section 633(2) allows the High Court to relieve an officer if they apprehend proceedings against them. The court noted that various High Courts, including Bombay, Allahabad, Punjab & Haryana, and Delhi, had held that the High Court's power u/s 633(2) is limited to pre-prosecution stages. Despite these precedents, the court examined the scheme of the Companies Act, 1956, and found that the High Court has broader jurisdiction. The court concluded that Section 633(2) provides additional power to the High Court to grant relief even in respect of anticipated proceedings and does not limit its jurisdiction to only pre-prosecution stages. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Vis-ram Financial Services was dismissed, and the main petition was held maintainable. The application for dismissal was dismissed, and it was left open for the applicant to file a counter to the main petition on merits.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1579
The Supreme Court of India, in 2013, dismissed the Special Leave Petition with the condonation of delay. The Respondent did not appear during the hearing.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1578
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the authority imposing the punishment.
2. Continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement.
3. Right to appeal against the order of punishment.
Summary:
1. Competence of the Authority Imposing the Punishment:
The Supreme Court examined whether the U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) was competent to impose the punishment of deducting 10% of the pension of the delinquent employee, Virendra Lal, who retired as an Assistant Engineer. The Court noted that Regulation 6(4) of the U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975, empowers the Chairman to deal with the report and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee and pass final orders for officers up to the rank of Superintending Engineer. Since the delinquent employee retired as an Assistant Engineer, the Chairman was the authorized authority to pass the order of punishment. However, the order was passed by the UPSEB, thereby denying the delinquent employee his right to appeal, which is a substantive right under Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 6.
2. Continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings Post-Retirement:
The Court referenced the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, which supports the proposition that disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement can continue post-retirement for the purpose of reducing pension and gratuity. The Court acknowledged that the disciplinary proceeding against Virendra Lal was initiated while he was in service and continued post-retirement, leading to the imposition of punishment by the UPSEB.
3. Right to Appeal Against the Order of Punishment:
The Court emphasized the importance of the right to appeal, which is a statutory right. It cited several precedents, including Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, and Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd., to highlight that when a higher authority imposes punishment, it should not deprive the delinquent employee of the right to appeal. In this case, the UPSEB's order deprived Virendra Lal of his right to appeal to the Board, as provided under the Regulations. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision to affirm the tribunal's order, which set aside the UPSEB's punishment, was correct and did not suffer from any impropriety or illegality.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the UPSEB's order of punishment was flawed due to the denial of the right to appeal, and affirmed the tribunal's direction to release the deducted pension amount with interest.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1577
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for assessment year 2008-2009 regarding addition of unaccounted income deposited in undisclosed bank account.
Summary:
The Revenue's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition of unaccounted income deposited in an undisclosed bank account. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to prove that cash deposits were received back and available for re-deposits, thus peak credit benefit should not be allowed. The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s order was well-reasoned, citing a similar case where only the peak amount of cash deposits was assessed. After considering the submissions and relevant precedents, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) correctly confirmed the addition of the peak amount of deposits in the assessee's bank account, as the funds were circulated through withdrawals and deposits. The ITAT noted that the peak amount calculation by the CIT(A) was appropriate, and there was no evidence to suggest any error in the assessment. Therefore, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order to assess the peak amount of credit in the bank account of the assessee.
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in Open Court as per the mentioned date.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1576
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the unaccounted business of money lending and finance should be assessed in the case of the Association of Persons (AOP) or the appellant firm.
2. Whether the status of AOP was valid without obtaining a Permanent Account Number (PAN) and filing returns.
3. Whether the business conducted by the appellant firm along with other persons should be taxed as AOP.
4. The correctness of the telescoping of additions and incremental peak credit computation.
5. The validity of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
Summary:
1. Unaccounted Business Assessment:
The assessee contended that the unaccounted business of money lending and finance should be assessed in the case of AOP and not the appellant firm. The AO rejected this plea, noting the absence of PAN and evidence of AOP formation. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the status claimed in the return of income must be followed, and the assessee had declared its status as a partnership firm. The Tribunal agreed, finding no evidence of AOP's existence and confirming the assessment in the status of the firm.
2. Status of AOP Without PAN:
The assessee argued that the AOP's lack of PAN was due to the business being carried outside the books. The AO and CIT(A) rejected this, emphasizing that the status must be claimed in the return of income, and the assessee had not done so. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting the absence of any documentary evidence supporting the AOP's existence.
3. Business Conducted by Appellant Firm:
The assessee claimed that the business was conducted by a group of persons forming an AOP. The AO and CIT(A) found no evidence supporting this claim, and the Tribunal agreed, stating that the business was carried out by the firm, not an AOP. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee failed to provide any corroborative evidence of the AOP's formation or existence.
4. Telescoping of Additions and Incremental Peak Credit:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the additions from the seized material and allow telescoping of income. The Tribunal supported this approach, stating that the cash flow statement prepared from the seized material must be considered. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the incremental peak credit and assess the net undisclosed income accordingly.
5. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c):
The CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) based on the incriminating documents found during the search. The Tribunal, however, restored the quantum appeals to the AO for re-adjudication, directing that the penalty be decided afresh along with the assessment order.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal to assess the income in the status of AOP and upheld the assessment in the status of the firm. The appeals related to the telescoping of additions and incremental peak credit were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-compute the undisclosed income. The penalty appeals were also allowed for statistical purposes, to be reconsidered along with the assessment order.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1575
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of commission expenses claimed by the assessee.
2. Cross objection supporting the deletion of disallowance of commission expenses.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of addition on account of commission expenses claimed by the assessee
The revenue was aggrieved by the order dated 20th November 2012, which deleted the addition of Rs. 77,32,430/- made on account of commission expenses claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by an earlier order dated 19th July 2013 in the case of a sister concern. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the commission expenditure due to lack of evidence proving the services rendered by the commission agents. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the appellant engaged in business with Government departments through commission agents, and payments were made through bank cheques. The CIT(A) also noted that the commission payments were reflected in the agents' tax returns and no disallowance was made u/s 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not address the Assessing Officer's findings regarding the lack of evidence for services rendered and the exorbitant commission rate. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Issue 2: Cross objection supporting the deletion of disallowance of commission expenses
The assessee's cross objection supported the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of Rs. 77,32,430/-. However, given the Tribunal's decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, the cross objection was deemed infructuous and dismissed.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the cross objection of the assessee was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the Tribunal and decide the issue afresh.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1574
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The time to deposit the pre-deposit amount was extended until October 31, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1573
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with the mandatory enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process.
2. Examination of a witness under section 200 Cr.P.C. who was not cited as a witness in the petition of complaint.
Summary:
Issue 1: Non-compliance with the mandatory enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process
The proceeding in complaint case No. C 2407 of 2012 was challenged on the grounds that the enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. was not conducted before issuing process, despite the accused residing beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. The court acknowledged the mandatory nature of the 2005 amendment to section 202 Cr.P.C., which requires an enquiry or investigation before summoning an accused residing outside the jurisdiction. The court analyzed various precedents, including *Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P.* and *National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz*, which emphasized the mandatory nature of such an enquiry. However, the court concluded that non-compliance with section 202 Cr.P.C. does not automatically vitiate the proceedings unless it causes prejudice to the accused, as per section 465 Cr.P.C. The court found that the allegations and initial depositions sufficiently established the offence and the complicity of the accused, and no prejudice was caused by the lack of an enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C.
Issue 2: Examination of a witness under section 200 Cr.P.C. who was not cited as a witness in the petition of complaint
The second issue raised was that only one witness, Babai Lama, was examined under section 200 Cr.P.C., and he was not cited as a witness in the complaint. The court held that it is not a legal requirement for all witnesses to be named in the petition of complaint. The examination of a witness produced by the complainant, even if not named in the complaint, is not illegal. The court emphasized that the petitioners would have the opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses during the enquiry u/s 244 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the examination of Babai Lama did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application, holding that the non-compliance with section 202 Cr.P.C. did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners, and the examination of a witness not named in the complaint was not illegal. The process issued against the petitioners was upheld.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1572
Issues involved: Dispute over the allowability of interest expenditure u/s 57(iii) of the IT Act against interest income earned from other sources.
Summary:
The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2008-09, specifically challenging the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 3,95,268/- while computing the total income. The assessee had borrowed funds to acquire shares of a company, from which interest income was earned. The AO disallowed the deduction of interest expenditure as there was no direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the interest income earned. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, emphasizing the requirement of a clear nexus between expenditure and income under section 57(iii).
During the appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the entire income from other sources should be considered for the allowability of expenditure u/s 57(iii), regardless of direct correlation. Citing relevant case laws, the assessee contended that expenditure incurred for earning income should be allowed even if no income was actually earned. However, the Departmental Representative argued that since the income from shares was not taxable, the corresponding interest expenditure could not be allowed as a deduction.
After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the interest expenditure, related to acquiring shares with tax-free income, could not be set off against interest income from other sources. Referring to section 14A, it was clarified that expenditure in relation to income not "includible" in total income must be disallowed, even if the income was not actually earned. The Tribunal rejected the argument that all items of income from other sources should be considered together, as income from shares, in the form of dividends, had to be excluded from total income.
The Tribunal distinguished the case laws cited by the assessee, stating that they were not applicable to the present scenario with section 14A in place. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of interest expenditure against interest income earned from other sources, based on the provisions of section 14A and the lack of taxable income from the shares acquired.
(Order pronounced on 30-10-2013)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1571
Issues Involved:
Cross-appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee against CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-2010 regarding deduction u/s 54 for multiple residential flats.
Summary:
The assessee filed a return declaring NIL income and claimed deduction u/s 54 against capital gains from a development agreement. The Assessing Officer recomputed the gains, restricting the deduction to one flat. The CIT(A) allowed the claim for four flats based on Karnataka High Court decisions. The Revenue appealed, but ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the binding precedent of the High Court. The ITAT emphasized that the term "a residential house" in section 54 should not be interpreted as singular, allowing exemption for multiple flats in the same building. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. As a result, both appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's additional appeal was also treated as dismissed.
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of "a residential house" u/s 54, emphasizing that the term does not restrict exemption to a single unit but can include multiple flats in the same building. The decision is based on the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court, which has been consistently followed in similar cases. The ITAT's ruling highlights the importance of judicial decisions in determining tax exemptions and upholds the principle that High Court decisions take precedence over Tribunal decisions in the absence of contradictory judgments.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1570
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of an appeal against an order passed u/s 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the computation of interest u/s 7Q.
Summary:
Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeal u/s 7Q
The Court examined whether an appeal lies against an order passed u/s 7Q of the Act. It was noted that Section 7I of the Act provides for appeals against certain orders but does not explicitly include orders passed u/s 7Q. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed unless expressly provided for by the statute. The Court concluded that no appeal is provided for against the imposition of interest u/s 7Q, and thus, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench that an appeal would lie to the tribunal u/s 7I was not sustainable.
Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The Court addressed whether the principles of natural justice were violated when the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued a demand notice u/s 7Q without providing the detailed working of the interest amount. It was argued that the levy of interest is automatic and involves mere arithmetic calculation, thus not necessitating a hearing. However, the Court held that even in cases of automatic interest computation, errors could occur, and the affected party should have the right to file an objection regarding the computation. Therefore, the Court directed that the computation sheets be provided to the Appellant, who could then file objections, which the Competent Authority should address in a summary manner.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed to the extent that the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge were set aside. The Court directed that the computation sheets be provided to the Appellant, who must deposit a further sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- within four weeks, failing which the entire amount would be leviable, and the right to file objections would be extinguished. No order as to costs was made.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1569
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of claim of bad debt.
2. Disallowance of lease rental paid by the assessee.
3. Disallowance of claim of depreciation in relation to additional custom duty.
4. Addition of notional interest on loan to M/s Rich Crest Animation Inc. USA.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Claim of Bad Debt:
The first dispute concerns the disallowance of a bad debt claim of Rs. 1,15,794/- related to TDS. The AO disallowed the claim, stating that TDS was not a trade debt. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found that the amount had been shown as income in earlier years and written off in the books, satisfying the conditions for bad debt. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
2. Disallowance of Lease Rental Paid by the Assessee:
The second issue pertains to the disallowance of lease rental. The AO disallowed the entire claim due to the absence of lease agreements. The CIT(A) partially upheld this, allowing the claim for TATA assets but not for Birla assets. The Tribunal noted that the method of accounting for lease rent had been accepted in earlier and subsequent years. It restored the matter to the AO for verification, directing that if the claim relates to the same assets as in other years, it should be allowed.
3. Disallowance of Claim of Depreciation in Relation to Additional Custom Duty:
The third dispute involves the disallowance of depreciation on additional custom duty of Rs. 2,09,22,914/-. The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the claim, considering the duty penal in nature. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the additional duty was not penal but a normal duty payable due to non-fulfillment of export obligations. It directed the AO to allow depreciation on the additional duty, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
4. Addition of Notional Interest on Loan to M/s Rich Crest Animation Inc. USA:
The fourth issue is the addition of Rs. 2,47,324/- as notional interest on a loan to a subsidiary. The AO applied the CUP method, comparing it to interest charged to other subsidiaries. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal found that the AO did not use independent uncontrolled transactions for comparison and that the CIT(A) did not apply the transfer pricing adjustment provisions correctly. It deleted the addition, noting the lack of comparable data and the age of the case.
Department's Appeal:
The department's appeal concerned the deletion of addition on account of lease rent for TATA assets. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, consistent with its decision on the assessee's appeal.
Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal is allowed, and the department's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 04-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1568
Issues involved: Disallowance of set off of carried forward business loss u/s. 79 of the I.T. Act.
Summary:
The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of set off of carried forward business loss of A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 u/s. 79 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer observed a change in the shareholding pattern of the assessee company and disallowed the set off of losses based on section 79. The CIT(A) also upheld this decision, stating that the conditions of section 79 were not met due to the change in shareholding. The assessee argued that despite the change, the group still controlled the shares and should be entitled to the set off. However, the Tribunal found that the change in shareholding pattern did not meet the requirements of section 79, as the beneficial holding had indeed changed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal analyzed the shareholding pattern and relevant provisions of section 79. It was noted that Priority One Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which previously held 80% shares, now held only 3.2%, while Mrs. Manisha Sanghani, who previously held no shares, now held 48.8%. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the shareholding remained within the group, emphasizing that a company is a distinct legal entity separate from its shareholders. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that section 79 applied to the case, as the shareholding pattern had indeed changed. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the decision of the CIT(A).
The assessee's reliance on a Tribunal decision from Delhi Bench was deemed irrelevant, as the facts of that case involving a merger were different from the present case. The Tribunal in the present case found the decision cited by the assessee to be inapplicable due to the distinguishable circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 23rd October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1567
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of condoning 1235 days delay in filing appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Adequacy of explanation for delay provided by the respondents.
3. High Court's discretion in condoning the delay.
Summary:
1. Legality of condoning 1235 days delay in filing appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellant challenged the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court's order condoning 1235 days delay in filing an appeal by the respondents u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court had enhanced the rental compensation for the temporary acquisition of the appellant's land from Rs.3.75 to Rs.12.70 per sq. meter per annum. The respondents neither appealed within the limitation period nor paid the enhanced compensation, leading the appellant to send notices in 2008, which were ignored by the ONGC officers.
2. Adequacy of explanation for delay provided by the respondents:
The respondents attributed the delay to procedural formalities and the need for approval from higher authorities. An affidavit by Shri S.G. Bhatt blamed Advocate Shri C.M. Raval for not informing ONGC about the judgment. However, Bhatt's subsequent affidavit shifted the blame to a Class III employee, Mr. Kalpesh R. Shah, for failing to notice the judgment. The appellant contested these explanations, asserting that ONGC was aware of the judgment in 2008, and accused the respondents of making false statements to escape liability.
3. High Court's discretion in condoning the delay:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for condoning the delay without considering the explanations and affidavits properly. The High Court assumed a "communication gap" between ONGC officers and their advocate, which was not supported by any evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and aims to ensure timely vindication of rights. It noted that sufficient cause for delay must be bona fide and not based on negligence or falsehood. The Court referenced precedents advocating a liberal approach to condonation but stressed that this should not apply where the explanation lacks bona fides or is concocted.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the respondents failed to provide a credible explanation for the delay and that the High Court erred in condoning it. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the respondents' appeal as time-barred. The Court directed the appellant to provide his bank account details to the respondents for the compensation to be deposited within a specified period.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1566
Issues Involved:
1. Application for sending questioned documents to SFSL.
2. Conflicting expert opinions on handwriting.
3. Court's power and procedure for examining handwriting.
4. Necessity of independent expert opinion.
5. Regulatory measures for expert witnesses.
Summary:
1. Application for sending questioned documents to SFSL:
The petitioner-defendant filed a civil revision petition u/s 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.05.2013 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Phul, which dismissed the application for sending the questioned documents (pronote and receipt) to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) for examination.
2. Conflicting expert opinions on handwriting:
The petitioner-defendant and respondent-plaintiff presented contradictory reports from their respective handwriting experts regarding the authenticity of the signatures on the questioned documents. The petitioner-defendant's expert claimed the signatures differed from the admitted ones, while the respondent-plaintiff's expert asserted they matched.
3. Court's power and procedure for examining handwriting:
The Court discussed the relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including Sections 45, 47, 67, and 73, which outline the methods for proving handwriting and signatures. The Court emphasized that while expert opinions are relevant, they are not binding, and the Court has the power to compare handwriting itself u/s 73 of the Act.
4. Necessity of independent expert opinion:
Given the conflicting opinions from the parties' experts, the Court deemed it necessary to seek an independent opinion from a government agency like SFSL/CFSL to resolve the conflict. The Court highlighted that the trial Court should consider the opinion of a third expert to break the stalemate and ensure a fair decision.
5. Regulatory measures for expert witnesses:
The Court directed the Departments of Justice and Home Affairs of Punjab, Haryana, and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to establish a regulatory mechanism for accrediting and registering expert witnesses. This includes preparing a list of qualified handwriting and fingerprint experts, verifying their credentials, and framing a code of ethics and conduct for their work. The Court emphasized the importance of expert opinions in the justice system and the need for a regulatory authority to handle conflicting expert opinions.
Conclusion:
The impugned order dated 07.05.2013 was set aside, and the petition was allowed. The trial Court was directed to send the questioned documents to SFSL/CFSL for examination, with expenses borne by the petitioner-defendant. The Court also mandated the creation of a regulatory framework for expert witnesses to ensure their credibility and reliability in legal proceedings.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1565
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and upholding the deletion of addition made on account of unexplained and ingenuine credits in the capital accounts of partners, and whether the addition representing ingenuine credits in the capital accounts of the partners should be made in the respective hands of the partners or in the case of the assessee.
Issue 1: Unexplained and ingenuine credits in capital accounts of partners
The revenue challenged the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition made on account of unexplained credits in the capital accounts of partners. The revenue argued that the partners received money from abroad, which was then transferred to the firm's account, and should be treated as income of the firm. However, the Tribunal and the Commissioner held that since the source of funds was known to the Assessing Officer, the firm was not liable for the addition. The firm disclosed that the funds were received from its partners, absolving it from further liability. The Tribunal affirmed that the onus to explain the source of funds lay upon the partners, not the firm. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
Issue 2: Addition of ingenuine credits in capital accounts
The second issue revolved around whether the addition representing ingenuine credits in the capital accounts of the partners should be made in the hands of the partners or in the case of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that if partners contribute money towards the firm's capital accounts, the money introduced cannot be taxed in the hands of the firm. The firm explained that the money came from the partners, and as the partners' identities were established, no further addition was required in the hands of the firm. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the revenue should proceed against the partners to examine the nature and source of the cash credits. The firm was absolved of any further liability as it had disclosed the source of funds, and the onus was on the partners to explain the receipts of money.
In conclusion, the judgment favored the firm, holding that the revenue should proceed against the partners to explain the source of funds, as the firm had already disclosed receiving funds from its partners. The onus to explain the source of funds lay upon the partners, absolving the firm from further liability.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1564
Issues Involved:
1. Quantum of compensation.
2. Liability of the doctors and hospital.
3. Contributory negligence by the claimant.
4. Method of calculating compensation.
5. Additional claims by the claimant.
6. Interest on compensation.
Summary:
Quantum of Compensation:
The Supreme Court found the compensation awarded by the National Commission inadequate and enhanced it substantially. The Court took into account the future prospects of the deceased's income, the inflation rate, and the economic status of the deceased. The Court awarded Rs. 5,72,00,550/- under the head of loss of income of the deceased, Rs. 7,00,000/- for medical treatment, Rs. 6,50,000/- for travel and hotel expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs. 10,00,000/- for pain and suffering, and Rs. 11,50,000/- for the cost of litigation, totaling Rs. 6,08,00,550/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the complaint.
Liability of the Doctors and Hospital:
The Court held the AMRI Hospital vicariously liable for the negligence of its doctors and directed it to pay the total compensation awarded, after deducting the amounts payable by the doctors. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Dr. Baidyanath Haldar were each directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs, and Dr. Balram Prasad Rs. 5 lakhs. The hospital was instructed to reimburse the doctors for any excess compensation they had already paid.
Contributory Negligence by the Claimant:
The Supreme Court set aside the National Commission's finding of contributory negligence by the claimant, Dr. Kunal Saha. The Court emphasized that the claimant's actions did not diminish the primary responsibility and default in duty by the defendants.
Method of Calculating Compensation:
The Court rejected the use of the multiplier method under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for determining compensation in medical negligence cases. Instead, it relied on the actual income and future prospects of the deceased, considering her qualifications and potential earnings.
Additional Claims by the Claimant:
The Court allowed the enhanced claim made by the claimant, rejecting the contention that the additional claim was not supported by pleadings. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of tribunals and courts to award just and reasonable compensation based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Interest on Compensation:
The Supreme Court found the National Commission's decision not to award interest on the compensation for the 15-year period the case was pending to be unreasonable. The Court awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation from the date of the complaint until the date of payment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the doctors and the hospital, modifying the compensation amounts they were liable to pay. The appeal filed by the claimant was also partly allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 6,08,00,550/- with 6% interest per annum. The AMRI Hospital was directed to comply with the judgment within eight weeks.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1563
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-2006 due to lack of prosecution as the assessee did not appear during the hearing and did not update the Tribunal about any change of address. The appeal was dismissed following the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD 320.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1562
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned letter is a direction or mere comments/advice.
2. Alleged violations of regulation 10 of SAST Regulations, 1997 by Mr. Akshay S. Pitti in 2006 and 2007.
3. Applicability of the principle of "persons acting in concert" under SAST Regulations, 1997.
4. Procedural fairness and principles of natural justice.
Summary:
1. Nature of the Impugned Letter:
The Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent's claim that the impugned letter was merely advisory. It held that the language of regulation 18(2) of the Takeover Regulation, 1997 is mandatory, requiring changes to the letter of offer when suggested by the Respondent. As such, the directions in the letter are binding and appealable under Section 15T of the SEBI Act.
2. Alleged Violations of Regulation 10:
The Appellants challenged the Respondent's comments regarding alleged violations of regulation 10 by Mr. Akshay S. Pitti in 2006 and 2007. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent did not issue any Show Cause Notice or provide an opportunity for the Appellants to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the shareholding of Mr. Akshay S. Pitti should be considered collectively with the promoter group, which had already exceeded the 15% threshold before the acquisitions in question.
3. Persons Acting in Concert:
The Tribunal emphasized that the concept of "persons acting in concert" under the SAST Regulations, 1997 requires the collective shareholding of the group to be considered. It held that once individuals act as part of a group with the intention of acquiring shares, their individual identities merge into the group's collective identity. Thus, the 15% threshold under regulation 10 should apply to the group's combined shareholding, not to individual members.
4. Procedural Fairness:
The Tribunal criticized the Respondent for not following due process, including failing to conduct a proper investigation into the past allotments and not issuing a Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal reiterated that any adverse findings must follow the due process of law, including giving the concerned parties an opportunity to be heard.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, permitting the Appellants to continue with their offer without incorporating the Respondent's impugned directions related to the acquisitions by Mr. Akshay S. Pitti in 2006 and 2007. The Tribunal underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the collective nature of shareholding when determining compliance with the SAST Regulations, 1997.
........
|
9911796707
