|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1471 Records
-
2021 (3) TMI 1231
Levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the show cause is issued to the assessee for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income? - HELD THAT:- Bare perusal of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act apparently goes to prove that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing the notice u/s 274/271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying whether the assessee has concealed ''particulars of income" or assessee has furnished "inaccurate particulars of income", so as to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the show cause notice. Rather notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying any mind which is bad in law, hence is not a valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
There is no specific order as to whether any concealment of inaccurate particulars in view of the decision in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factor [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - we direct the AO delete the penalty in all the captioned appeals for the years under consideration - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1230
Computation of deduction u/s 80HHC - as per CIT-A while arriving at business income for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC, 90% of other income should be excluded under clause (baa) of the explanation below Section 80 HHC which includes receipts like rental income, commission, notice pay, income from cancelled orders and miscellaneous/sundry income etc - CIT-A directing the AO to exclude 90% of the 'net interest income' instead of 'gross interest receipts' from the 'profits and gains of business or profession' to arrive at 'business profit' under clause (baa) for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC particularly in view of use of expression -receipt- and not "income" in the said clause - HELD THAT:- Taking a consistent view, we direct accordingly as directed in the Tribunal order for the AY 2000-01. However, we make it clear that while considering the income, the AO shall take net income after setting off the expenditure incurred to earn that income. Thus, the ground by the assessee is allowed, while the grounds of the revenue on this issue are dismissed.
Head office expenses as required to be allocated while arriving at the profit of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80-I / 80-IA - HELD THAT:- As all expenses, whether they are direct or indirect or fixed, semi-fixed or variable, must be adjusted to determine the profits derived from the industrial undertaking. Of course, any component of Head Office expenses, which has been incurred exclusively for the purposes of the business of any particular unit/ undertaking/division will have to be adjusted against the receipts of that particular unit/undertaking/division only.
Similarly, Head Office expenses or expenses which are common to all the units/undertakings/divisions expenses will have to be spread over and charged against the receipts of all the units/ undertakings/divisions. If this course is not followed, then what would stand allowed u/s 80IA would be inflated profits and not the net profits derived from the industrial undertaking in terms of the provisions of sections 29 to 43. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any better alternative, the CIT(A) is justified in holding assessee is entitled to deduction of the eligible amounts in respect of the profits derived from the eligible undertakings after the allocation of head office expenses in the ratio of turnover - Decided against assessee.
Deduction claimed u/s 80-0 at 50% of fees received for supply of engineering designs and drawings - as submitted that the claim is for fees received for developing and providing designs and drawings - HELD THAT:- Merely raising invoices for the purpose of having provided engineering designs cannot be a yardstick to determine the exact amounts received by the assessee for the services rendered by it. Mere raising of invoices and on the basis of which claiming deduction u/s 80-0 of the Act running into crores of rupees can neither be justified nor allowed without any sheer of documentary proof. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the issue, we inclined to agree with the reasoning of the CIT (A), which does not require our intervention.
Expenditure being amount spend towards Repairs and renovation of Leasehold premises - Revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has not erred in holding that expenditure being amount spend towards Repairs and renovation of Leasehold premises is capital expenditure.
Disallowance of reversal of provision made for the obsolete stock in earlier years - CIT(A) was of the view that the only issue to be seen is whether any fresh provision was made towards obsolescence in the accounts for the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- Before the CIT(A), it was explained that the provision is normally made based on the accounting standards. On subsequent verification, the CIT(A) found that excess provision had been made in Nasik and Peenya units. Therefore, the excess provision was reversed. Since no fresh provision was made towards obsolescence, the addition deleted by the CIT(A).
Now the contention of the ld. AR is net reversal of ₹ 5,72,796 has to be allowed as a deduction in the assessment year under consideration. In our opinion, this amount of ₹ 5,72,796 was allowed as a deduction in the earlier years when the provision was created. Now non-taxing of the same amounts to allowing double relief. Hence reversal of provision of ₹ 5,72,796 has to be brought to tax in the assessment year under consideration. As such, we confirm the order of CIT(Appeals) on this issue and dismiss this ground of appeal by the assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A - expenses incurred for earning the dividend from the investment made out of the interest bearing funds - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case it is clear that own funds of the assessee were much more than the investments that yielded tax-free dividend income. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the revenue authorities were not right in concluding that the borrowed funds on which interest was paid was used for the purpose of making investments that yielded tax-free dividend income. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the addition made by the revenue authorities cannot be sustained. The same is directed to be deleted.
Disallowance being provision made for loss order on the ground that same is contingent in nature and there is no scope for allowance of any liability that is unascertainable - HELD THAT:- AO says that the loss in question is contingent he is deemed to have questioned the basis on which the Assessee has quantified the loss. Without assigning a basis on which the loss is said to be accrued loss, the Assessee cannot claim deduction on account of foreseeable loss. We deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the AO for fresh consideration with a direction that the Assessee will furnish the basis on which he claims that there would be loss in the three contracts, the details of which are given above. The AO will consider the same and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording Assessee opportunity of being heard.
Disallowance of bad debts written off - HELD THAT:- The issue is remitted to the assessing officer to ascertain twin questions viz., (i) whether debt which was written off during the relevant year was offered to income in Previous year or earlier years, (ii) whether the assessee has debited the amount of doubtful debt to profit and loss account and has reduced the same from the asset side of the balance sheet. The matter is remitted to the AO for de novo consideration of the aforementioned aspect.
Deduction u/s 80HHB when no separate books in respect of foreign project were maintained - HELD THAT:- If we examine the nature of work done by the assessee in the foreign country, we fully subscribe to the factual finding recorded by the CIT (A). It has to be borne in mind that Section 80HHB of the Act is a provision, which grants incentive to the assessee for growth and development and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions, such provision should be liberally construed, as it will promote economic growth of the country. We therefore uphold the order of CIT(A) and find no merits in the relevant ground of appeal (iii) raised by the revenue.
Nature of expenditure - Club membership fee paid by the company is an admissible business and cannot be regarded as capital expenditure.
Allowance of R & D expenditure u/s 35(I)(iv) when the activity claimed to be the R&D activity is part of normal business of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case identical issue was decided by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tejas Network Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 1064 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and it was held that where assessee claimed deduction under section 35(2AB) pursuant to certificate issued by prescribed authority, i.e., Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR), approving such claim, Assessing Officer could not have denied weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of scientific expenditure. It was held that Assessing Officer cannot sit in judgment over report submitted by prescribed authority . It was held that where Assessing Officer does not accept claim of assessee made under section 35(2AB), he should refer the matter to Board, which will then refer question to the prescribed authority.
Expenses on the basis of purchase of packing materials, loose tools and consumables in the year of purchase - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case Assessee submitted before Assessing Officer that; (i) packing material shown as purchases as on 31-3-2005 was actually purchased in earlier months and such packing material was consumed during process; (ii) on account of some computer problem, bills were posted on 31-3-2005, and (iii) entire packing material left after end of year became obsolete and, therefore, it was not shown in closing stock. Assessing Officer rejected account books of assessee and made certain addition to his income. The Tribunal held that:- (i) it was not case of revenue that purchases as debited as on 31-3-2005 were not genuine, and (ii) assessee was following a consistent method of valuing closing stock by including packing material as consumed at time of purchase. Rejection of account books of assessee and addition to his income was held to be not justified.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1229
Revision u/s 263 - Scope of amendment of Explanation-2(c) to Section 263 - whether the Assessing Officer has passed the order after taking into account the directions or instructions issued by the CBDT under section 119 of the Income Tax Act? - whether Explanation-2(c) to Section 263 of the Act is prospective or retrospective in nature? - HELD THAT:- We find that the case before us pertains the Assessment Year 2014-15 and impugned Explanation-2(c) to Section 263 was applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, we note that Explanation-2(c ) to section 263 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 authorizing the ld. PCIT to hold the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, is prospective in nature, as held by the various Coordinate Benches of ITAT.
Therefore, in our considered view the provision as specified in explanation 2(c) to section 263 of the Act cannot be applied for the year under consideration. Therefore, order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) dated 09.11.2016 for A.Y.2014-15, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and hence the order passed by the ld PCIT under section 263 of the Act is hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1228
Dishonor of Cheque - validity of demand notice - full disclosure of the details of the transaction in the notice of demand not made - what constitutes valid consideration - insufficiency of funds - acquittal of accused - HELD THAT:- No particular form has been prescribed under the Act with respect to a notice u/s. 138(b) of the Act except that the payee or holder in due course should make a demand for the payment of the amount of money within 30 days from the receipt of intimation from the bank regarding the return of the cheque. The court cannot legislate by prescribing a particular form and cannot require that the nature of the transaction, leading to the issuance of cheque, be disclosed in the notice when the statute does not provide for it. It is also to be noted in this context that the offence u/s. 138 of the Act is an offence which would be attracted on the ingredients referred being satisfied.
Facts, circumstances and evidence adduced probabilise the version of the defence that in the year 1993 the accused issued cheque as a financial assistance. There are no hesitation to find that though execution of P1 cheque is proved the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption and it has been established that there was no valid consideration for issuance of the cheque.
The accused having succeeded in rebutting the presumption, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove the consideration. In the case at hand apart from producing Ext. P1 cheque, complainant did not produce any document or other evidence to prove consideration. Source of fund though alleged to be his nephew and brother in law of his wife, they were not examined. There is no material produced to prove the alleged business transaction between himself and the accused in Riyad or the business of accused for which he asserted to have advanced loan - this is a case in which the accused rebutted the presumption available under Section 139 of the Act and the complainant miserably failed to prove the consideration for Ext. P1 cheque. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused.
Non disclosure of the nature of the transaction between the parties in the notice is fatal and that the suppression of the particulars of the transaction in the complaint is sufficient to order acquittal is held to be not good law.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1227
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal dismissed as time barred in terms of Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1944 - date of filing of writ petitions had not been provided by the Ld. counsel for the appellants - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that the order of the Hon’ble High Court was passed the order on 28.03.2018 and thereafter till 4 months no application for providing certified copy of the order by Hon’ble High Court and after receiving the certified copy also the appellants have filed appeals after more than 15 days of the receipt of their order.
In these Circumstances, as the hands of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are tight with the law in terms of Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, therefore, if it is considered that the time consumed by the appellants before the Hon’ble High Court is to be excluded than also appeals have been filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the time limit prescribed in statute.
The appeals filed by the the appellants are highly time barred - Appeal dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1226
Seeking grant of Bail - Murder - allegation of heinous and shocking murder of a lady doctor - High Court proceeded to grant bail on the purported ground that he had been in custody since 6th October 2020 (that is, about 75 days) without even considering the materials on record - presence of eye witness - HELD HAT:- The High Court clearly erred in not appreciating that the apprehension of the Prosecution that the Respondent Accused would influence witnesses, could not be put to rest, by directing the Respondent Accused not to enter the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station. The High Court completely ignored the fact that the deceased victim used to reside at Ernakulam. Her parents and her five years old daughter reside at Ernakulam. In other words, the only eye witness is a resident of Ernakulam. Most of the Prosecution witnesses were from Thrissur. There was no reason to suppose that the witnesses would restrict their movements to the limits of the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station.
It further appears from the impugned order that, in granting bail to the Respondent Accused, the High Court took note of the fact that two other accused persons had not been arrested. The High Court completely ignored the fact that these two accused persons were not named in the FIR. They were charged after investigation with offence under Section 212, of harbouring the Respondent Accused, punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of five years, unlike the Respondent Accused, charged with murder under Section 302 of the IPC, which entails minimum punishment of imprisonment for life
There can be no doubt that the outbreak of the novel COVID-19 pandemic and its spread has been a matter of serious public concern. The virus being highly infectious, precautions to prevent spread of infection to the extent possible are imperative - This Court also directed that a High Powered Committee be constituted by the States and Union Territories to consider release of some prisoners on interim bail or parole during the Pandemic, to prevent overcrowding of prisons.
The orders of this Court are not to be construed as any direction, or even observation, requiring release of under-trial prisoners charged with murder, and that too, even before investigation is completed and the chargesheet is filed. The Respondent Accused, it is reiterated, is charged with murder in the presence of an eye witness, and the impugned order granting bail was filed even before the chargesheet was filed. The Chargesheet appears to have been filed on 01.01.2021. Moreover the Respondent Accused had been absconding after the incident.
The impugned order of the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1225
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- All provisions of IBC, 2016 stand complied. Further, there is a debt which is due and payable and not barred by limitation. There is no pre-existing dispute as well. The amount claimed is much more than the threshold limit of ₹ 1 lakh. The name of IRP has not been proposed as it is not mandatory in case of application filed under Section 9 of 1B Code, 2016.
Corporate Debtor M/S. Manpasand Beverages Ltd. is admitted in Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1224
Direction to hold that CIRP has been dismissed - seeking direction that Interim Resolution Professional shall not act in the CIRP - HELD THAT:- Honble Supreme Court has held in the matter of COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS OF ESSAR STEEL INDIA LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS SATISH KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS [2019 (11) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT] that the CIRP must 'ordinarily" be completed within the time limit of 330 days from the Insolvency Commencement Date unless extended by the Court on sufficient cause.
The original Petitioner under Section 7 of the IBC was filed on 21.052018 and the same was admitted on 2308.2019. In the process 986 days and 537 days have passed from the date of filing the application and the admission of the application respectively - It is made dear that this Court is not a Recovery Court and in the name of OTS / acceptance or non-acceptance of OTS, negotiation / failure of commitment / further negotiation, CIRP period has crossed 537 days.
In the absence of the clarify from the FC, CD and IRP relating to their stand on the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, CIRP after the Judgment of the Hon'ble NCLAT, Writs filed before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Bench is not able to proceed further/ dispose of the matter as the application is filed under IBC and the disposal of the matter needs to be done within the stipulated time.
This Tribunal allows the instant Appeal setting aside the impugned order and matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order afresh, after providing an opportunity to the opposite party in the light of the directions in the body of the judgment - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1223
Exemption u/s 11 - activity of the various city development authorities as charitable or not? - CIT- A allowed the exemption - HELD THAT:- The issue of treating the activity of the various city development authorities as charitable or not has been adjudicated by various Courts and Tribunals which consistently held that the activity of acquiring land, development of plots and construction of residential as well as commercial places is an activity considered as charitable in nature.
“Infrastructure Development Fund” in the instant case , the AO held that the amount should have been first credited in the income and expenditure account and the amount spends out of the same should have been debited to this account. It is an undisputable fact that the fund is not under the exclusive control of the assessee and the expenditure to be incurred out of the infrastructure funds are approved on the recommendation of high powered committee.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority [2013 (9) TMI 570 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that the money transferred to the Infra structure fund account is to be utilized for the purpose of the projects as specified by the Committee having constituted by the State Government and cannot be treated as belonging to the authority or receipt is taxable nature in its hand.
In the absence of any change in the factual matrix brought to our notice by either of the parties, we hereby decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1222
Sanction of scheme of Amalgamation - Rules 6 and 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 - HELD THAT:- The applicant is guilty of abuse of process of law and his conduct disentitles him from any relief in the present petition also. In fact, as noticed by this Court in the earlier orders, the claim of the applicant has been rejected not only by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs but also by the Reserve Bank of India.
The present application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1221
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) - Director's remuneration paid - commission to the Director shareholders disallowed - CIT-A deleted the addition as confirmed by tribunal - HELD THAT:- As decided in AMD Metplast Pvt Ltd [2011 (12) TMI 320 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Managing Director entitled to receive commission for services rendered to the company - It is a term of employment on the basis of whichhe had rendered service. Accordingly, he was entitled to the said amount. Commission was treated as a part and parcel of salary and TDS has been deducted. Ashok Gupta was liable to pay tax on both the salary component and the commission. Payment of dividend is made in terms of the Companies Act, 1956. Dividend has tobe paid to all shareholders equally. This position cannot be disputed by the Revenue. Dividend is a return on investment and not salary or part thereof. Herein the consideration in the form of commission which was paid to Ashok Gupta was forservices rendered by him as per terms of appointment as a Managing Director. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of deduction under section 801B(10) - CIT-A deleted the addition as confirmed by tribunal - HELD THAT:- As decided in Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise [2012 (12) TMI 84 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] it is an admitted fact that the approval was granted for construction, both by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the local authority, namely, Chennai Corporation. The letter of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority according sanction to the project as early as 23.9.2003 clearly points out that the sanction was also subject to the approval by the Corporation.
With the planning details being subjected to the approval by the Corporation as the competent local authority and it having certified as to the completion as early as 28.12.2007, we are satisfied that the completion being on or before 31.3.2008, the reliance placed on Explanation (2) to reject the assessee's case could not be sustained. In any event, given the fact that the approval, which is an administrative process, is purely at the hands of the Statutory Authority concerned, over which, the assessee could not have any control, the Explanation cannot, in any manner, have a negative effect on a factual aspect of the matter, namely, completion of the construction. Thus, in a case like this, where, the local authority, being the Corporation, had already certified about the completion of the project as per the approved plan, the fact that one of the Authorities, namely, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had issued a letter only on 13.6.2008, per se, cannot negative the assessee's claim for deduction - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1220
Grant of Regular Bail - seizure of immovable properties as well as bank accounts - prosecution of PMLA - HELD THAT:- The applicant is ready and willing to deposit an amount of ₹ 50 Lakh within stipulated period - Considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail - Application allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1219
Non-bailable warrants - Apprehension for taking into custody - Recovery of taxes - Constitutional Validity of of Sections 69 and 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - It was held by High Court that The prayer for interim protection to the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation, cannot be accepted - HELD THAT:- The Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution cannot be entertained - SLP dismissed
-
2021 (3) TMI 1218
Seeking grant of Bail - petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter and co-accused who is Managing Director of the Company and Beneficiary has already been released on bail - HELD THAT:- This petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner is a senior citizen and he is in custody for last about five months and secondly, all the evidence is documentary in nature and there is no apprehension shown by the prosecution about the accused petitioner of tempering with the evidence/witnesses and thirdly, the co-accused has already been released on bail.
Bail granted - application allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1217
Seeking grant of Bail - wrong claim GST - Fake invoices without supply of goods - Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is deemed proper to allow the bail application - it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court - application allowed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1216
Seeking extension of time to comply with order to deposit entire compensation amount and furnish personal bonds with one surety in the like amount - HELD THAT:- Having taken note of the fact that an amount of ₹ 75,000/- out of total amount of compensation stands deposited, prayer made in the instant application deserves to be allowed, accordingly, further three weeks’ time is granted to the petitioner to comply with order dated 6.1.2021, failing which respondent would be at liberty to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law.
Application stands disposed of.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1215
TDS u/s 195 - payments made by the appellant for purchase of computer software by holding that the said payments are in the nature of ‘royalty’ - income chargeable to tax in India or not? - disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- As decided in the case of ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident computer software manufacture/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements, is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software, and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in Section 195 of the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under Section 195 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1214
Covid-19 Regulatory Package notified by the RBI vide notification dated 27.03.2020 - case of petitioner is that the Regulatory Package will not in any manner salvage the MSMEs and help them recover from financial losses that have been caused due to the unforeseen circumstances - complete waiver of interest or interest on interest during the moratorium period - sector-wise relief packages sought to be offered by the Union of India and/or the RBI and/or the Lenders - seeking moratorium to be permitted for all accounts instead of being at the discretion of the Lenders - seeking extension of moratorium beyond 31.08.2020 - seeking extension of last date for invocation of the resolution mechanism, namely, 31.12.2020 provided under the 6.8.2020 circular.
HELD THAT:- In RK. GARG VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1981 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT], it has been observed and held that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. It is further observed that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints, because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula and this particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters - This Court in the case of STATE OF MP VERSUS NANDLAL JAISWAL [1986 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances. The court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
In the case of PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VERSUS RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [1992 (1) TMI 337 - SUPREME COURT], it is observed and held by this Court that the function of the Court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is further observed that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts.
Thus, it is not the function of the Court to amend and lay down some other directions. The function of the court is not to advise in matters relating to financial and economic policies for which bodies like RBI are fully competent. The court can only strike down some or entire directions issued by the RBI in case the court is satisfied that the directions were wholly unreasonable or in violative of any provisions of the Constitution or any statute. It would be hazardous and risky for the courts to tread an unknown path and should leave such task to the expert bodies. This Court has repeatedly said that matters of economic policy ought to be left to the government.
The present petitions seeking reliefs, namely, (i) total waiver of interest during the moratorium period; (ii) to extend the period of moratorium; (iii) to extend the period for invocation of the resolution mechanism, namely 31.12.2020 provided under the 6.8.2020 circular; (iv) that there shall be sector-wise reliefs provided by the RBI; and (v) that the Central Government/RBI must provide for some further reliefs over and above the relief packages already offered stand dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1213
Seeking extension of Amnesty Scheme - cap on the late fees to be collected - exemption from the payment of late fees between 25 March 2020 and 30 June 2020 - refund of amounts calculated - HELD THAT:- The Amnesty Scheme itself lies in the realm of a policy intervention by the Union Government. The terms on which the Amnesty has been granted are hence matters of policy. There are no merit in the petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1212
Disallowance u/s 14A - correctness of such claim of the Respondent in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act - license fee paid to the Department of telecommunication by the assessee - whether exemption under section 10A of the Act should not be computed after excluding telecommunication expenses and foreign currency expenditure from the export turnover - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision rendered in HCL COMNET SYSTEMS & SERVICES LTD. [2021 (3) TMI 1182 - DELHI HIGH COURT]These questions of law as suggested by the revenue cannot be entertained. In brief, the questions of law as suggested by the revenue stand covered by various judgments of either this Court or the Supreme Court.
............
|
9911796707
