|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1194 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1158
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of physician's samples expenses.
2. Transfer pricing adjustments.
3. Ad-hoc disallowances of discount, commission, sales promotion, traveling, conveyance, and vehicle expenses.
4. Set off of long-term capital loss against long-term capital gain.
5. Disallowance of website expenses.
6. Disallowance of product development & clinical trial expenses.
7. Addition due to change in the basis of inventory valuation.
8. Disallowance u/s 14A.
9. Reduction of profits for deduction u/s 80-HHC.
10. Reduction of DEPB incentive for deduction u/s 80IB.
11. Bad debts disallowance.
12. Double taxation and other minor disallowances.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Physician's Samples Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 4,30,32,095/- claimed for physician's samples due to lack of credible evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination following its decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2003-04.
2. Transfer Pricing Adjustments:
The AO made an upward adjustment of Rs. 2,82,40,086/- to the ALP. The CIT(A) revised the adjustment to Rs. 1,68,13,382/- and allowed further relief of Rs. 31,26,616/-. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, following the decision in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2003-04.
3. Ad-Hoc Disallowances:
- Discount and Commission: The AO disallowed Rs. 5,00,000/- on an ad-hoc basis, upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance.
- Sales Promotion: The AO disallowed Rs. 20,00,000/- on an ad-hoc basis, upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal deleted the addition following its earlier decision.
- Traveling, Conveyance, and Vehicle Expenses: The AO disallowed Rs. 10,00,000/- on an ad-hoc basis, upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal deleted the addition following its earlier decision.
4. Set Off of Long-Term Capital Loss:
The AO disallowed set-off of long-term capital loss against long-term capital gain of Rs. 25,25,719/-. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination following its earlier decision.
5. Disallowance of Website Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,94,400/- for website expenses. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify if the expenses were for maintenance. The Tribunal allowed the expenses, considering the smallness of the amount.
6. Disallowance of Product Development & Clinical Trial Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 3,91,436/- due to lack of details. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal allowed the expenses considering the business nature.
7. Addition Due to Change in Inventory Valuation:
The AO added Rs. 11,00,000/- due to a change in inventory valuation method. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination.
8. Disallowance u/s 14A:
The AO disallowed Rs. 24,11,250/- u/s 14A. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 1% of the total dividend income.
9. Reduction of Profits for Deduction u/s 80-HHC:
The AO excluded certain incomes from business profits for deduction u/s 80-HHC. The CIT(A) partly upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination following its earlier decision.
10. Reduction of DEPB Incentive for Deduction u/s 80IB:
The AO reduced DEPB income for deduction u/s 80IB. The CIT(A) upheld the reduction. The Tribunal confirmed the reduction following the Supreme Court decision in Liberty India Ltd.
11. Bad Debts Disallowance:
The AO disallowed Rs. 78,63,967/- for bad debts. The CIT(A) allowed the claim. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
12. Double Taxation and Other Minor Disallowances:
The AO did not follow DRP directions on certain issues. The Tribunal directed the AO to follow DRP directions and decide afresh.
Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues restored to the AO for fresh examination following earlier Tribunal decisions. Some disallowances were confirmed, and others were deleted.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1157
The Supreme Court judgment in 2013 (8) TMI 1157 involved HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL. The Petitioner was represented by Mr.Basava Prabhu S.Patil, Sr.Adv., Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv., Mr.Anirudh, Adv. The Respondent was represented by Mr.Pratap Venugopal, Adv., Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv., Mr.Gaurav Nair, Adv., Mr.Debarshi Bhuyan, Adv. The order states, "Notice."
-
2013 (8) TMI 1156
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 regarding the appropriate bench composition for hearing matters in High Courts.
Summary:
The Supreme Court, comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, heard the petitions presented by the parties represented by their respective counsels. The main contention raised was the requirement of a Division Bench, as per Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, for matters in the High Court. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 21 mandates a Division Bench for such cases. Consequently, the orders issued by the High Courts in Crl.P. No.6562/2012 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Criminal Bail Application No.1063/2012 in the Bombay High Court were deemed to be incorrect and were set aside. The cases were directed to be restored to the Division Bench of the respective High Courts.
It was noted that the respondents in both cases were in custody. Therefore, the Supreme Court urged both High Courts to expedite the hearing of the applications and make a decision within eight weeks from the date of receiving the Supreme Court's order. The special leave petitions were disposed of with these directions.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1155
Issues involved: Whether income tax is liable to be deducted from the sale consideration at the time of transfer of an immovable property by a resident transferor.
Comprehensive details of the judgment:
Issue 1: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking direction to disburse the entire sale consideration without any deduction of income tax, as the property is being transferred to the Government for the Kochi Metro Rail Project. The petitioner relied on a previous case to argue that tax deduction is warranted only in cases of compulsory acquisition.
Issue 2: The respondents acknowledged that income tax is not to be deducted under Section 194IA of the Income Tax Act when the price is fixed by negotiation and not through land acquisition. However, they argued that tax deduction is applicable under Section 194IA of the Act effective from 1.6.2013, as the property is not agricultural land and the sale consideration exceeds Rs. 50 lakhs.
The court heard arguments from both parties and examined Section 194IA of the Act, which mandates tax deduction at the rate of 1% of the sum as consideration for transfer of immovable property exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs. The property in question was within the Aluva Municipality and not classified as agricultural land, meeting the criteria for tax deduction.
The court clarified that land situated within a Municipality is not considered agricultural land as per the Act. The total sale consideration for the property in question exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs, justifying the deduction of income tax at 1% of the sum under Section 194IA of the Act.
The judgment directed the District Collector and Special Tahsildar to disburse the sale consideration to the petitioner after deducting income tax at the specified rate. The petitioner was advised to address any tax liability through the proper channels. The court distinguished the present case from previous judgments, emphasizing the applicability of tax deduction under Section 194IA in the absence of compulsory acquisition.
The Writ Petition was allowed in part, with no costs imposed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1154
The Supreme Court of India granted leave and tagged the case with C.A. Nos. 10619-10620/2011. (2013 (8) TMI 1154 - SC)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1153
Issues involved: Appeal against order u/s 143(3) for assessment year 2007-08 - Treatment of income from sale of shares as business income instead of short term capital gain - Charging of interest u/s 234B & 234D and withdrawal of interest u/s 244A - Request for amendment of grounds of appeal.
Treatment of income from sale of shares: The appellant contested the assessment of income on sale of shares as business income instead of short term capital gain, as declared by the appellant. The AO and CIT(A) treated the income contrary to law and facts. The appellant argued for the income to be assessed as short term capital gain. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but sustained the addition made by the AO, treating it as business income. The appellant's counsel argued for the correct treatment based on transactions in Mutual Funds, citing relevant case laws.
Charging of interest u/s 234B & 234D and withdrawal of interest u/s 244A: The appellant denied liability for interest charged u/s 234B & 234D and withdrawal of interest u/s 244A, stating it was contrary to law and facts. The Ground No. 3 of the assessee related to mandatory charging of interest u/s 234B and 234D, with the possibility of consequential relief. The Ground No. 4 was of a general nature and required no adjudication.
Amendment of grounds of appeal: The appellant requested the indulgence of the court to add, amend, or alter the grounds of appeal before the date of hearing. The counsel for the assessee did not press Ground No. 1, which was subsequently dismissed. The only effective ground remaining was related to the treatment of income from sale of shares, which was allowed for statistical purposes. The matter was directed to be restored back to the AO for verification and fresh decision after considering the transactions in Mutual Funds.
Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter being sent back to the AO for reevaluation.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1152
Issues involved: Validity of government order reserving vacancies for sports personnel, interpretation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India regarding reservations in public appointments.
Validity of Government Order Reserving Vacancies for Sports Personnel:
The judgment pertains to a case where a Government Order was issued in 2006, reserving certain vacancies for sports personnel. Subsequently, in 2009, a clarification was issued requiring candidates to be residents of the State to be eligible for the reserved posts. The respondents challenged this clarification, arguing that it could not be inserted into the 2006 Government Order as it substantively altered the original order. The learned Single Judge held in favor of the respondents, emphasizing that the advertisement was published before the 2009 clarification, thus rendering the clarification invalid as it altered the original order.
Interpretation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India:
The High Court delved into the constitutional aspect of the case, focusing on Article 16 which guarantees equality of opportunity in public appointments. The Court highlighted that Article 16(1) mandates equal opportunity for all citizens in matters of public appointments, without any reservations unless specified under Article 16(4), 16(4A), and 16(4B) for backward classes, scheduled castes, and scheduled tribes respectively. The Court concluded that the 2006 Government Order, which formed the basis of the respondents' claim, was invalid as it contravened the provisions of Article 16. Consequently, the Court held that no rights could be derived from the said Government Order, and the respondents could not seek appointment based on the illegally created reservation for sports personnel.
Judgment Outcome:
In light of the above analysis, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturning the judgment under appeal, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court's decision was based on the finding that the Government lacked the authority to reserve government posts for sports personnel as it violated the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing equality of opportunity in public appointments for all citizens.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1151
Issues involved: Appeals filed by the assessee against orders of the ld. CIT(A) for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Summary:
Issue 1: Search u/s 132 and assessments u/s 153A
The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing IMFL, underwent a search u/s 132 of the Act in 2006, leading to assessments u/s 153A for the relevant years. Various additions were made, including disallowance of depreciation and expenses related to advertisement, marketing, and preliminary expenses. The Tribunal, considering arguments from both sides, directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the entire issue afresh, following a similar order passed for assessment year 2004-05. Both parties relied on the Tribunal's decision, leading to the restoration of the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration, ensuring a hearing for the assessee in accordance with the law.
Decision:
The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to reevaluate all issues in a manner consistent with the decision made for assessment year 2004-05. The appeals of the assessee were allowed accordingly.
Note: The judgment was pronounced on 12-09-2011 by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1150
Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal by the Trial Court and Conviction by the High Court.
2. Allegations of Dowry Demand and Cruelty.
3. Contradictions in Witness Statements.
4. Defense of Illicit Relationship and Pregnancy.
5. Obligation of the Accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Application of Sections 113 and 106 of the Evidence Act.
Summary:
1. Acquittal by the Trial Court and Conviction by the High Court:
The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment convicting the Appellant u/s 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, reversing the Trial Court's acquittal. The High Court sentenced the Appellant to various terms of imprisonment and fines, directing all sentences to run concurrently.
2. Allegations of Dowry Demand and Cruelty:
The prosecution alleged that the Appellant demanded dowry and subjected Shanthi to cruelty, leading her to commit suicide by self-immolation. The Appellant's quarrel with Shanthi over Rs. 50/- was cited as an incident of cruelty.
3. Contradictions in Witness Statements:
The Trial Court found material contradictions in witness statements regarding the dowry demand and the timeline of marriage negotiations. The High Court, however, deemed these contradictions immaterial, emphasizing the consistent demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty.
4. Defense of Illicit Relationship and Pregnancy:
The Appellant claimed Shanthi had an illicit relationship and was pregnant at the time of marriage. The Trial Court accepted this despite medical evidence to the contrary. The High Court rejected this defense, citing the post-mortem report confirming Shanthi was not pregnant.
5. Obligation of the Accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Appellant denied all allegations during his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and provided no explanation for the incriminating circumstances. The High Court noted that failure to explain such circumstances could be seen as a missing link in the chain of evidence.
6. Application of Sections 113 and 106 of the Evidence Act:
The High Court applied Section 113 of the Evidence Act, presuming the Appellant's guilt due to the lack of rebuttal. Additionally, Section 106 was invoked, as the Appellant had special knowledge of the incident but failed to explain Shanthi's death.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding the Trial Court's acquittal perverse and unsupported by evidence. The Appellant's appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1149
Issues involved: Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A)-VIII, Chennai regarding carried forward business loss, set off of unabsorbed depreciation, and disallowance of claim for depreciation.
Carried Forward Business Loss: Assessee appealed for correction of carried forward business loss amount. Assessing Officer directed to verify and adopt correct figure of carried forward business loss, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
Set Off of Unabsorbed Depreciation: Assessee claimed set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income from house property. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing the set off. Assessee relied on Supreme Court decision and amendment to section 32(2) by Finance Act, 2001. Tribunal held in favor of assessee based on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, allowing set off against income under any head without limit.
Disallowance of Claim for Depreciation: Disallowance of claim for depreciation of &8377; 1,81,174/- upheld as income from rent is chargeable under 'income from house property' and depreciation cannot be claimed against the same property.
Conclusion: Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing correction of carried forward business loss and allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income under any head. Dismissed the claim for depreciation against rental income. The order was pronounced on August 5, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1148
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the deletion of addition of expenses by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Nashik was justified.
2. Whether the donation made to another trust is in accordance with the trust deed.
Issue 1: Deletion of addition of expenses:
The revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of &8377; 72,00,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Nashik, contending that the expenses were not made on the object of the trust as the donation violated the trust deed. The Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of &8377; 72,00,000/- in the assessment order, stating that the assessee trust had not made expenditure on its objects as per the Trust Deed dated 14-01-1972. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee trust had not complied with the provisions of Sec. 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and made the disallowance for giving the donation to another trust. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, citing relevant instructions and court decisions. The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), stating that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the CBDT instructions.
Issue 2: Donation in accordance with trust deed:
The second issue revolved around whether the donation made to another trust was in accordance with the trust deed. The Assessing Officer had examined the main objects of the assessee trust as per the Trust Deed and concluded that the trust's main objects were in the field of welfare, propagation, and preservation of the vedic culture. The Ld. CIT(A) considered relevant instructions and court decisions, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed the decision, stating that the donations given to another charitable trust were considered an application of income within the meaning of Sec. 11 of the Act, as per court precedents and CBDT instructions.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in favor of the assessee trust.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1147
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of loss related to interest income.
2. Classification of income as agricultural income or business income.
Disallowance of Loss Related to Interest Income:
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VI, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee, a retired employee, had borrowed funds from a bank and deposited them back, claiming the interest payment made to the bank as loans. The Assessing Officer disallowed the losses claimed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the loss without detailed examination. Both parties agreed that the issue was not clearly discussed by the authorities, leading to a remittance request. The ITAT set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the issue in detail and pass a speaking order.
Classification of Income as Agricultural Income or Business Income:
The second issue was whether the income from the sale of Padur land should be treated as agricultural income or business income. The Assessing Officer considered the transaction as business income due to the location and frequent land transactions by the assessee. The assessee contended that the land was agricultural and exempt from taxation, supported by the sale of similar land by the assessee's wife. The ld. CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to treat the income as agricultural based on the wife's sale and some Tribunal decisions. However, the ITAT found insufficient examination of the land and surrounding factors, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed review.
In conclusion, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, with the ITAT emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of facts and legal provisions in both issues.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1146
Issues involved: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender in contravention of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Summary:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender in a case registered for various offenses. The lower court had issued a proclamation against the petitioner, but it was found that the mandatory period of 30 days for appearance was not provided as per Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. The Court adjourned the case after the publication, but this did not fulfill the requirements of the law. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding it not in compliance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
The Court observed that the proclamation issued against the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. as the specified time for appearance was less than 30 days from the date of publication. The Court noted that the mere adjournment of the case after the publication did not fulfill the legal mandate for giving the accused the necessary time to appear.
In light of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., the High Court held that the publication requiring the accused to appear in Court was not in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender was not valid as it did not provide the specified time and place for the accused to appear. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the return of the lower court record.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1145
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-2007.
Summary:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-2007 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer had imposed the penalty based on additions made in the assessment order u/s 143(3), which were later deleted by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was also deleted by the learned CIT(A).
Upon reviewing the submissions and relevant material, it was observed that the learned CIT(A) had deleted the penalty on the grounds that the additions, which were the basis of the penalty, no longer existed following their deletion by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. There was no evidence to show that the Tribunal's order had been reversed or modified by the High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the penalty.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the deletion of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-2007. The order was pronounced on August 16, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1144
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Whether Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution.
3. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Summary:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition:
The Court examined the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against Annexure P-1. The respondent argued that the petition is not maintainable as the impugned order was issued by Rotary International, a private entity based in the USA, and not properly impleaded. The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish that Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution. Additionally, the petition was not filed by the persons directly affected by Annexure P-1, further questioning its maintainability.
2. Whether Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that Rotary International should be treated as a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 due to its public welfare activities. However, the Court held that the petitioners did not provide sufficient data or documents to demonstrate the nature, constitution, government control, source of finance, and activities of Rotary International. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to establish that a body falls within the ambit of Article 12. The Court referred to several judgments, including Binny Ltd. and Zee Telefilms, to conclude that Rotary International does not meet the criteria to be considered a "State" or "other authority."
3. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that their right to live with dignity under Article 21 was infringed by the impugned order, which affected their right to contest elections. The Court rejected this contention, stating that contesting and winning elections in a private club does not have any nexus with Article 21. The Court cited A.K. Gopalan and other judgments to assert that contesting elections is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. The impugned order was deemed an internal matter of a private club, unrelated to any public function or statutory obligation.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that it was not maintainable. The petitioners failed to establish that Rotary International is a "State" or "other authority" under Article 12, and the alleged violation of Article 21 was found to be meritless. The petition was also dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed by the persons directly affected by the impugned order.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1143
Issues involved: Modification of order for re-schedulement of instalment payment.
Summary:
The present application before the Delhi High Court was filed by the petitioner seeking a modification of the order dated 24th January, 2013, which disposed of the initial petition. The petitioner specifically sought re-schedulement of the third instalment of Rs. 75 crores, which was not paid on the due date. Revised terms and conditions for the payment of the balance amount were submitted along with the application. Initially, the terms were not acceptable to the respondent, but both parties have now agreed upon revised terms and conditions, which were presented in court and duly signed by the counsels for the parties.
Both the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent prayed for the modification of the order in accordance with the revised terms and conditions submitted in court. They also undertook to abide by these terms and conditions as well as the provisions of the previous order dated 24th January, 2013. The promoters of the petitioner company were required to file affidavits/undertakings to confirm their compliance with the revised terms within two weeks.
The court accepted the statements made by the counsels for both parties and held them bound by the same. The application was consequently disposed of based on the agreed-upon terms and conditions presented in court. The court ordered the issuance of the order dasti for necessary action.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1142
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to wages during forced suspension.
2. Validity of inquiry and termination.
3. Award of back wages.
Summary:
1. Entitlement to wages during forced suspension:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Appellant, a teacher, was entitled to wages for the period she was forcibly kept out of service by the school management. The Appellant was suspended without the approval of the Education Officer, which was required under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (the Rules). Despite the Education Officer's refusal to approve the suspension, the management did not revoke it nor paid subsistence allowance as mandated by the Rules.
2. Validity of inquiry and termination:
The Appellant's suspension was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8404 of 2006, which resulted in the Bombay High Court declaring that she be deemed to have rejoined her duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits. However, the management conducted an ex parte inquiry, not allowing the Appellant's representative to participate, and terminated her service on 15.6.2007. The School Tribunal found the inquiry and termination arbitrary and violative of natural justice, noting the management's vindictive attitude and the frivolous nature of the allegations.
3. Award of back wages:
The Tribunal ordered reinstatement with full back wages, recognizing that the Appellant was not gainfully employed during the suspension. The High Court, however, set aside the back wages award, citing lack of evidence of non-employment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in this decision, emphasizing that the burden of proof for gainful employment lies with the employer once the employee asserts non-employment. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's order for full back wages, noting the frivolous charges and procedural violations in the inquiry.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the Tribunal's order for full back wages and directing the management to comply within four months, failing which interest would be payable at 9% per annum. Non-compliance would invite contempt proceedings.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1141
Issues involved: Concern over incident in a flat leading to complaint u/s 294 and 504 IPC.
Details of the Judgment:
1. Background of the Case: Incident in Flat No. 5, 2nd Floor, Goolestan, Mumbai, led to a complaint u/s 294 and 504 IPC by the sister-in-law of the accused, who alleged unlawful acts by the accused to push her out of the flat.
2. Criminal Revision Application: Appellant challenged the order issuing process u/s 504 IPC, contending lack of specifics in the complaint to show how the accused provoked the complainant. Allegation of improper understanding of Section 202 CrPC by the Magistrate was raised.
3. Contentions: Complainant argued that the complaint contained sufficient material to establish the offence u/s 504 IPC. Emphasized that verbatim reproduction of words spoken by the accused was not necessary for establishing a prima facie case.
4. Judicial Review: Additional Sessions Judge and High Court found no merit in the application for quashing proceedings u/s 504 IPC. The accused appealed against these decisions.
5. Legal Analysis: Section 504 IPC requires intentional insult leading to provocation for breach of peace or other offence. The intentional insult must be of a degree to provoke such actions. The law does not mandate verbatim reproduction of words in the complaint.
6. Court's Decision: The Court emphasized that at the complaint stage, the Magistrate's role is to assess if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. A detailed discussion on the merits of the case is not required. Prima facie case for initiating proceedings u/s 504 IPC was found based on the complaint's contents.
7. Conclusion: The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1140
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction towards Bid Loss.
2. Taxability of Foreman's Dividend.
3. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deduction towards Bid Loss
The revenue's appeal (ITA No.1315/Bang/2012) contested the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction towards Bid Loss, arguing it pertained to a period beyond the relevant accounting year. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's case for AY 2005-06. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that the decision of the coordinate Bench on an identical issue must be followed, and the pendency of an appeal before the High Court does not justify not following the Tribunal's earlier order.
Issue 2: Taxability of Foreman's Dividend
In the assessee's appeal (ITA No.1282/Bang/2012), the issue was the addition of Foreman's Dividend amounting to Rs. 52,09,740/-. The assessee argued it was not taxable on grounds of mutuality. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing a coordinate Bench's earlier ruling against the assessee on an identical issue for AY 2003-04, and thus dismissed the appeal.
Issue 3: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147
The assessee's appeal (ITA No.1281/Bang/2012) challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 for AY 2003-04. The Tribunal found that the AO had not alleged that the escapement of income was due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, a requirement under the proviso to section 147. Citing the Tribunal's decision in a similar case (M/s. DHFL Vysya Housing Finance Ltd.), the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid, and the reassessment order was annulled.
Conclusion:
- ITA No.1315/Bang/2012 (Revenue's appeal) is dismissed.
- ITA No.1282/Bang/2012 (Assessee's appeal) is dismissed.
- ITA No.1281/Bang/2012 (Assessee's appeal) is allowed.
- ITA No.1314/Bang/2012 (Revenue's appeal) is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1139
Issues involved:
1. Validity of reassessment order
2. Reopening of assessment based on excessive deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act
Validity of reassessment order:
The High Court considered the appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision on the validity of the reassessment order. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reassessment was a mere change of opinion without tangible material to support the claim of income escapement. The Court quoted the Tribunal's findings stating that the Assessing Officer substituted his own views, indicating a change of opinion rather than a valid reassessment. Due to this fact finding, the Court found no legal element involved and dismissed the appeal.
Reopening of assessment based on excessive deduction under Section 80HHC:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of reopening the assessment based on excessive deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. It was noted that the Tribunal correctly held that an audit opinion regarding the application or interpretation of law cannot serve as a basis for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Court cited precedents from the Supreme Court to support this position, including the cases of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lucas TVS Ltd. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no further legal aspect to be decided in the appeal and dismissed it without costs.
........
|
9911796707
