|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 858 Records
-
2010 (3) TMI 1233
Issues involved: Challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
The petitions challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Arunkumar and others Vs. Union of India. The Apex Court held that Rule 3 will apply after proving a concession in rent without any deeming fiction. As the challenge has been addressed by the Apex Court, the cause of action for the petitioners does not survive, leading to the dismissal of all petitions.
With the dismissal of the petitions, any interim orders in place will automatically end. Employers are directed to quantify the tax liability equivalent to the TDS amount due to the income tax department and remit it within three months. Failure to comply may result in the employers being treated as assessees in default. The Income Tax Department is also permitted to take further steps for assessment or reassessment, including recovery of tax dues, in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Arunkumar case.
In conclusion, all petitions are dismissed, and the rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1232
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2010 (3) TMI 1232 - SC. Judges were Mr. S.H. Kapadia and Mr. Swatanter Kumar.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1231
Petition challenging the vires of notification dated August 16, 1994 by which main notification dated February 19, 1991 was amended - building plans sanctioned and constructions made and ongoing constructions pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone - Construction made between 50 meters to 100 meters of ‘High Tide Line’ - ‘No Development Zone’ should be marked at 100 meters and the stop work order - Whether a judgment in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action is prospective or retrospective effect? - HELD THAT:- From the record, it becomes clear that the petitioners had made an application to the Panchayat to inspect the construction made on Survey No.12/1 and 99/2 which were stretches of lands lying between 50 meters and 100 meters. In view of the contents of the said letter, a Panchayat official had inspected the site on September 25, 1996 and prepared a site inspection report. The said report indicated that the petitioners had completed foundation work up to the plinth level and in some of the areas of the property, the construction work of the building was complete and ready for occupation.
The record shows that the National Coastal Zone Management Authority considered the matter in detail in its meeting held on October 30, 2007. The Authority, after detailed discussions, was of the view that there would be several cases all over the coast wherein there would be some instances indicating that constructions work had been completed or was in progress pursuant to the Notification dated August 16, 1994. Therefore, the Authority concluded that the stand taken by the MOEF vide letters dated January 24, 2007, February 13, 2007 and May 16, 2007 was correct one and was in accordance with the CRZ notification of 1991.
Whether the constructions made or on-going pursuant to the plans sanctioned on the basis of Notification dated August 16, 1994 would be affected or not - A critical study of the judgment in Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action [1996 (4) TMI 534 - SUPREME COURT] makes it clear that this Court had examined validity of six amendments made by Notification dated August 16, 1994 in the Notification dated February 19, 1991. Two out of the six amendments were found by this Court to be arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, they were struck down. When one part of the Notification was found to be legal and another part of the said Notification to be bad in law, it would not be proper to construe the judgment affecting past transactions.
Tenor of the judgment indicates that this Court intended to give prospective effect to the judgment dated April 18, 1996 rendered in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (supra). It is to be noted that this Court in its judgment dated April 18, 1996 had not specifically directed demolition of existing structures. It is also pertinent to note that this Court had not stated as to what will be the fate of ongoing constructions which were coming up or on-going as per sanctions during the period when the said amending Notification dated August 16, 1994 was valid and in force. On perusal of the judgment in entirety, it is abundantly clear that the judgment is in form of directions to the Central Government and other authorities formed within the purview of Environment Act, 1986 and those directions are to be followed in future.
While interpreting the judgment, it is important to take into consideration the view expressed over the matter in controversy by various Governmental Authorities formed under the purview of Environment Act, 1986 to implement the provisions of Environment Act, 1986 although such view or opinion is not binding on the Court. By communication dated January 24, 2007, February 13, 2007 and May 16, 2007 issued by Additional Director of Ministry of Environment and Forests and decision of National Coastal Zone Management Authority dated October 30, 2007, it is brought on record that all the authorities unanimously opined that judgment of this Court dated April 18, 1996 will operate prospectively and further clarified that any developmental activity which has been initiated between August 16, 1994 and April 18, 1996 after obtaining all requisite clearances from the concerned agencies including the Town and Country Planning should be construed as on-going projects and are not hit by the judgment of this Court dated April 18, 1996.
Taking into consideration all the factors, this Court refuses to interpret the 1996 judgment in a manner which would give it a retrospective effect. It is clear from the tenor of judgment and from other background circumstances, more importantly in view of decisions of NCZMA which is a statutory body that Three Judge Bench decision in 1996 case intended to give it prospective effect.
As observed earlier, the whole matter was reconsidered by the NCZMA pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It is well to remember that the said order was never challenged by the respondents before higher forum and by their conduct, the respondents had permitted the said order to attain finality.
The contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the construction already completed would not be affected in any manner by decision of this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (supra) but incomplete construction cannot be permitted to be completed is devoid of merits. Two amendments made in the year 1994 were declared to be illegal vide judgment dated April 18, 1996. Till then, its operation was neither stayed by this Court nor by the Government.
Therefore, a citizen was entitled to act as per the said notification. This Court finds that the rights of the parties were crystallized by the amending notification till part of the same was declared to be illegal by this Court. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that part of the amending notification was declared illegal by this Court, all orders passed under the said notification and actions taken pursuant to the said notification would not be affected in any manner whatsoever.
The plea that the petitioner would get benefit of interpretation placed by statutory bodies and others would not get any benefit and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed has no substance. A bare glance at the minutes of the 16th meeting of the NCZMA held on October 30, 2007 makes it more than clear that it was concluded by the authority that the stand taken by the Ministry vide letters dated January 24, 2007, February 13, 2007 and May 16, 2007 was correct and was in accordance with Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991. What is relevant to notice is that the said authority has in terms held that the clarification given by the MOEF is applicable to all such cases in the coastal areas of the country. Therefore, the plea that only petitioners have been favoured by the authority and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed cannot be accepted.
We are of the opinion that a good case has been made out by the petitioners for issuance of a declaration that the judgment dated April 18, 1996 rendered in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (supra) will not affect the on-going constructions or completed constructions pursuant to the plans sanctioned under the amending Notification of 1994 till two clauses of the same were set aside by this Court.
Therefore, the petition partly succeeds. It is declared that the judgment dated April 18, 1996 in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India [1996 (4) TMI 534 - SUPREME COURT], declaring part of the amending Notification dated August 16, 1994 to be illegal, will not affect the completed or the on-going constructions being undertaken pursuant to the said Notification The rule is made absolute to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1230
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issues of acquitting the accused charged under Section 498A/304-B IPC, evaluation of evidence by the trial judge, defense evidence presented by the accused, testimony of an independent witness, and the discretion of the Appellate Court in re-appreciating evidence.
Acquittal under Section 498A/304-B IPC:
The trial judge acquitted the husband and parents-in-law of the deceased based on various pieces of evidence. The suicide note of the deceased stated that nobody was responsible for her actions. The parents of the deceased did not mention any dowry harassment during their statements. The husband had named the deceased as the nominee in all his assets. The trial judge noted that the parents of the deceased made allegations of dowry demand only during the court proceedings, which were considered as an exaggeration.
Evaluation of Evidence:
The trial judge considered the defense evidence presented by the accused, including statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defense showed that the deceased was the nominee in the husband's life insurance policy and they had a joint bank account. The defense also highlighted that the father-in-law of the victim had never been posted where the husband was posted, ruling out proximity for harassment. The defense evidence also refuted allegations of dowry demands during the marriage.
Testimony of Independent Witness:
An independent witness, the landlord of the accused, testified against them. The trial judge analyzed the witness's testimony and noted improvements made by the witness compared to the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.
Discretion of the Appellate Court:
The judgment emphasized that the Appellate Court should not re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. The Appellate Court should ensure that material evidence is not ignored and inconsequential circumstances are not given undue prominence. If the conclusion drawn is illogical, the Appellate Court can reconsider the matter. In this case, the High Court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal against the well-considered decision of the trial judge.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1229
Issues Involved: Appeal against deletion of addition of cash credited in books and commission payment u/s 147 and 143(3) for AY 2001-02.
Summary:
1. The revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash credits and commission payments. The assessment was framed u/s 147 read with sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment, which was not adjudicated by the CIT(A) as the additions were deleted. The assessee filed its return declaring a loss, and the assessment was accepted initially. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened, and the taxable income was determined with certain disallowances. The revenue contended that the reopening was justified based on information from the Investigation Wing. The assessee argued that the reasons for reopening did not demonstrate any failure to disclose material facts. The ITAT ruled that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment without specific failure on the part of the assessee, quashing the assessment.
2. The ITAT considered Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, which allows the respondent to support the order appealed against on grounds decided against them. The rule states that if a jurisdictional issue is decided against the assessee but relief is granted on merit, the respondent can defend the order. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer did not point out how the assessee failed to disclose particulars fully and truly regarding the share application money. As the assessment was reopened without specific failure by the assessee, the ITAT held that the reopening was unjustified. The CIT(A) should have adjudicated this issue, and the ITAT allowed the ground of appeal and quashed the assessment.
3. On the merit of the issue, the ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on the assessee's evidence identifying the share applicant. The Assessing Officer had treated information from the Investigation Wing as true but failed to consider the evidence provided by the assessee. The ITAT found that the summons sent to the director of the company was unserved, and the Assessing Officer should have conducted further investigation. Considering these aspects, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
4. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced in the open court on 18.03.2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1228
Issues involved: Appeal against order u/s 12AA(1)(b)(i) read with proviso (ii) to section 12A(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 1: Delay in filing application for registration
The assessee trust, created in 1986, filed an application for registration under section 12A of the Act in 2007, seeking retrospective effect from 1986. Reasons for delay included the founder trustee's lack of awareness of tax laws and successive deaths of trustees. The CIT rejected the request for retrospective registration, citing the application made beyond the statutory period and vague reasons provided. The registration was granted from 2006, not retrospectively.
Issue 2: Appeal for retrospective registration
In the appeal, the assessee argued for retrospective registration based on a similar case where registration was granted under similar circumstances. The Tribunal considered the provisions of sec.12A and the requirement for the Commissioner to be satisfied about the trust's objects and activities. Relying on a previous decision, the Tribunal found the reasons for delay valid, emphasizing the charitable nature of the institution and the trustees' lack of legal knowledge. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to grant retrospective registration, allowing the appeal.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, granting retrospective registration to the assessee trust. No additional grounds were raised, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1227
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the disallowance of business loss, treatment of interest income, disallowance under section 14A, and classification of certain receipts as business income.
Disallowance of Business Loss:
The appeal concerned the disallowance of business loss of Rs. 22,31,246 by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on the grounds of lack of business activity during the year. The appellant argued that the loss was genuine and supported by audited accounts and relevant documents. The Commissioner of Income Tax (C.I.T.) directed the A.O. to allow the business loss, considering the temporary lull in business activity and the exploitation of commercial assets for survival. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the C.I.T.'s decision, emphasizing that temporary cessation of business does not imply permanent closure, citing relevant case laws.
Treatment of Interest Income:
The A.O. treated a portion of interest income as income from other sources, while the appellant claimed the entire interest income as business income. The C.I.T. directed the A.O. to treat the full interest income as business income, based on the temporary deployment of surplus business funds. The ITAT upheld this decision, citing a similar case law and emphasizing that the interest income arose from the utilization of commercial assets.
Disallowance under Section 14A:
The A.O. disallowed a portion of dividend income under section 14A, estimating 10% of the exempted income as disallowance. The C.I.T. deleted this disallowance, noting that the assessee did not incur any expenditure to earn the dividend income. The ITAT referred the matter back to the A.O. in line with a Special Bench decision for further consideration.
Classification of Receipts as Business Income:
The Revenue challenged the C.I.T.'s direction to treat certain receipts as business income, including rental income, liabilities written back, and service charges. The ITAT upheld the C.I.T.'s decision, considering the temporary lull in business and the exploitation of commercial assets for income generation. The judgments in these matters were supported by relevant case laws and findings related to business income treatment.
In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the Revenue's appeal while upholding various directions of the C.I.T. regarding the treatment of business loss, interest income, disallowance under section 14A, and classification of specific receipts as business income.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1226
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI upheld the decision to allow refund equal to deemed credit of 20% for appellants who exceeded the small-scale exemption limit for readymade garments in the initial one-month period. The appeal filed by the Department was rejected, and the cross-objection was disposed of.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1225
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an income tax appeal under section 206-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-prosecution by the appellants for not complying with office objections despite sufficient time granted. The appeal was dismissed as the appellants were not diligent in prosecuting the case.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1224
The Supreme Court condoned the delay and dismissed the special leave petitions. The High Court remitted the matter to the Commissioner, who can issue summons to Shir Kanjibhai to ascertain ownership of the goods in question.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1223
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involves several core legal questions: - Whether depreciation is allowable on the BSE Membership Card.
- Whether the allocation of expenditure in respect of speculation loss was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).
- Whether the addition on account of cessation of liability was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).
- Whether the disallowance of interest on loans advanced by the assessee was correctly deleted by the CIT(A).
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Depreciation on BSE Membership Card - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The decision was influenced by the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd., which held that depreciation on BSE Membership Card is not allowable.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal followed the decision of the Bombay High Court, which clarified that a BSE Membership Card does not qualify for depreciation under the Income Tax Act.
- Key evidence and findings: The CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation was reversed based on the legal precedent.
- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the existing legal precedent to conclude that the CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation.
- Treatment of competing arguments: Both parties conceded to the precedent, leading to the reversal of the CIT(A)'s order.
- Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's ground, reversing the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation.
Issue 2: Allocation of Expenditure in Respect of Speculation Loss - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue revolves around the interpretation of Explanation to Section 73 and its application to share trading and broking activities.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the Explanation to Section 73 does not mandate the allocation of expenditure for speculative transactions when the transactions are delivery-based.
- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found no speculative transactions under Section 43(5), thus rejecting the need for allocation of expenses.
- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view that the assessee's activities did not constitute speculative transactions requiring expense allocation.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument for expense allocation, supporting the CIT(A)'s interpretation.
- Conclusions: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the allocation of expenditure.
Issue 3: Cessation of Liability - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act pertains to the cessation of liability.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that there was no evidence of cessation or remission of liability by the assessee.
- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the liabilities were still reflected in the balance sheet and had not been written off.
- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found no cessation of liability under Section 41(1), supporting the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument due to lack of evidence for liability cessation.
- Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for cessation of liability.
Issue 4: Disallowance of Interest on Loans - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The case law of Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs. CIT was considered regarding the onus of proving the source of funds.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the interest-free loans, negating the presumption of using borrowed funds.
- Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequate profits and reserves to justify the advances.
- Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue had not demonstrated that the loans were made from borrowed funds.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's disallowance due to insufficient evidence of nexus with borrowed funds.
- Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Depreciation on BSE Membership Card: "BSE Membership Card is not eligible for depreciation."
- Allocation of Expenditure in Speculation Loss: "The provisions of section 73 only say that if the assessee's business consists any purchase and sale of shares, the said business would be speculative business... Nowhere in the Act, it is provided that expenditure should be allocated with respect to such transactions."
- Cessation of Liability: "The A.O. has not proved that there has been remission or cessation of liability for bringing this case u/s. 41(1)."
- Disallowance of Interest on Loans: "The A.O. can not presume that advances were given out of borrowed funds only."
The Tribunal's final determinations were to allow the Revenue's appeal in part, specifically reversing the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation on the BSE Membership Card, while rejecting other grounds related to speculation loss, cessation of liability, and disallowance of interest.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1222
The Bombay High Court rejected a motion in Appeal No. 625 of 2005 on 03-03-2010 as the order under challenge was not stayed by the court for about five years. The court found the motion infructious and directed the parties to proceed for the hearing of the appeal.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1221
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the attachment order dated 21st April, 2007.
2. Legitimacy of the transaction between the appellants and M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
3. Application of Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the attachment order dated 21st April, 2007
The appellants challenged the attachment order dated 21st April, 2007, arguing that the Official Liquidator did not attach the plot until September 2007, despite the winding-up order dated 26th April, 1999. They contended that the delay of nine years was crucial and relevant for the prayers made in the company application.
Issue 2: Legitimacy of the transaction between the appellants and M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt. Ltd.
The appellants asserted that they acquired the subject plot from M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt. Ltd. in good faith, paying a total sum of Rs. 1,75,00,000/-. They claimed that the records did not reveal any litigation or fault with the title of M/s. Arsh International Chemical Pvt. Ltd. However, the respondents, including the Official Liquidator, argued that the transfer of the subject plot was void u/s 536(2) and 537(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, as it was executed after the winding-up petition was filed.
Issue 3: Application of Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956
The appellants argued that the transaction should be regularized u/s 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, as they acted in good faith and were unaware of the winding-up order. The court, however, noted that the Directors of the company in liquidation entered into the transaction with full knowledge of the winding-up proceedings, attempting to keep the valuable assets out of the reach of the court and the Official Liquidator. The court emphasized that the principles under Section 536(2) allow saving transactions undertaken under compulsion to protect the company's property, but in this case, the transaction was not in good faith.
Conclusion:
The court found no error in the learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the company application. The appeal was dismissed, and the court suggested that the appellants could pursue substantive proceedings against all parties, including the Official Liquidator, for appropriate declarations and reliefs pertaining to their title.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1220
Issues: Appeal against order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Questions of law regarding quashing of Order-in-Appeal and penalty imposition.
Quashing of Order-in-Appeal: The High Court considered the correctness of quashing the Order-in-Appeal due to the detection of finished stock shortage by the Central Excise staff using scientific weighment method. The prevailing method of weighment adopted by iron & steel units was highlighted. The Court referred to a case [Delhi-II v. M/s. Mico Glass Industries Private Limited 2010 (254) E.L.T. 254 (P & H)] emphasizing that penalty is leviable only on goods clandestinely removed outside the factory premises, not on goods still within the premises with detected shortage.
Reduction of Penalty: The Tribunal was found to have erred in reducing the penalty imposed on the assessee. The High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding the assessee liable to pay the same amount of penalty equivalent to the duty involved on the goods, which amounted to Rs. 16,383. The Court emphasized that the penalty should be imposed on goods seized from the intercepted truck, in line with a previous case [M/s. Mico Glass Industries' case], where it was established that penalty is applicable to goods being clandestinely removed outside the factory premises.
Disposition of Appeal: Consequently, the assessee was directed to pay an equal amount of penalty on the goods seized from the intercepted truck. The appeal was disposed of with the assessee being held liable for the penalty as determined by the Court based on the circumstances and legal precedents cited.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1219
The appeal filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI due to lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The appellant has the option to seek restoration of the appeal after obtaining COD's clearance.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1218
Issues involved: Show cause notice, time schedule compliance, setting aside impugned order, disposal of petition and application.
Show cause notice: The Respondent's counsel stated that a show cause notice would be issued to the Petitioner within ten days, along with relevant documents. The Petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel, agreed to respond within a further ten days. The Respondents were to schedule a hearing and make a final decision within four weeks, with communication to the Petitioner within one week thereafter. The Petitioner retained the right to seek legal remedies if dissatisfied with the decision.
Setting aside impugned order: The direction was given to set aside the impugned order, with strict adherence to the specified time schedule by both parties. This decision aimed to ensure timely resolution and communication of the final outcome to the Petitioner.
Disposal of petition and application: The petition and application were disposed of as per the directions provided in the judgment. Additionally, a copy of the order was to be provided promptly to the respective counsel for the parties, under the signature of the Court Master, for their records and compliance.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1217
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings before the Lokayukta, Delhi.
2. Legitimacy of the Lokayukta's inquiry in parallel with criminal proceedings.
3. Validity of the Lokayukta's interim recommendations and procedural orders.
4. Alleged violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights.
5. Interpretation of the term "affirmation" under Section 2(b)(i) of the DLAU Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Quashing of Proceedings Before the Lokayukta, Delhi:
The petitioner, an MLA, sought to quash the proceedings before the Lokayukta in Complaint No. C-236/Lok/2009, which included two orders dated 17th February 2010. The complaint was filed by a Superintending Engineer of the Delhi Jal Board, alleging that the petitioner barged into his office, shouted, and assaulted him. The petitioner denied the allegations and filed a reply and an application to dismiss the proceedings. The Lokayukta dismissed the application and set the procedure for inquiry, leading to the petitioner challenging these decisions in the High Court.
2. Legitimacy of the Lokayukta's Inquiry in Parallel with Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioner argued that the DLAU Act did not contemplate parallel inquiries by the Lokayukta and police, citing Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. The court noted that the DLAU Act allows inquiries into allegations even if they form the subject of criminal proceedings. The Act's provisions indicate that the Lokayukta's inquiry can proceed notwithstanding criminal investigations. The court found no merit in the argument that the Lokayukta should await the outcome of the criminal case, emphasizing that the Lokayukta's findings would not bind the criminal court.
3. Validity of the Lokayukta's Interim Recommendations and Procedural Orders:
The petitioner contended that the Lokayukta, having made an interim recommendation to the LG, should await the LG's response before proceeding. The court held that the Lokayukta could make multiple recommendations and proceed with the inquiry concurrently. The Lokayukta's actions were within his powers, and the complaint against the MLA for assaulting a public servant fell within the scope of Section 2(b)(i) of the DLAU Act. The court also upheld the Lokayukta's discretion to set the inquiry procedure, finding it consistent with the Act and natural justice principles.
4. Alleged Violation of the Petitioner's Fundamental Rights:
The petitioner argued that the inquiry procedure would force him to disclose his defense, violating his Article 21 rights. The court rejected this, noting that civil and disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings. The Lokayukta's findings would not bind the criminal court, and the inquiry was essential to maintain administrative integrity. The court found no prejudice to the petitioner from the Lokayukta's procedure.
5. Interpretation of the Term "Affirmation" Under Section 2(b)(i) of the DLAU Act:
The petitioner argued that the complaint lacked "affirmation" as required by Section 2(b)(i). The court interpreted "affirmation" flexibly, consistent with the Act's purpose. The Lokayukta could devise a procedure where the complainant affirmed the allegations during the inquiry. The court emphasized a purposive interpretation to advance the Act's remedial objectives.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Lokayukta's authority to proceed with the inquiry and rejecting the petitioner's challenges on all grounds. The court upheld the Lokayukta's procedural orders and interpretation of the DLAU Act, emphasizing the Act's purpose to ensure accountability of public functionaries.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1215
Issues involved: Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2005-06 regarding disallowance of depreciation on BSE Card and VSAT/leaseline charges u/s.40(a)(ia) of the IT Act, 1961.
Disallowed Depreciation on BSE Card:
The AO disallowed depreciation on BSE Membership Card, considering it a personal right, not a depreciable asset. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim based on Tribunal order. The revenue argued citing a Bombay High Court decision. However, the Tribunal referred to a Jurisdictional High Court ruling stating BSE Card did not qualify for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii). Consequently, the depreciation claim was disallowed, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.
VSAT and Leaseline Charges Disallowance:
The AO added charges to income u/s.40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on V-SAT and leaseline charges, considering them as "fees for technical services." The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, following a Tribunal order, stating the charges were for infrastructure use, not technical services. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that stock exchanges provide facilities, not technical services, and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, disallowing depreciation on BSE Card and upholding the deletion of disallowance on VSAT/leaseline charges. The decisions were based on legal interpretations and precedents, ensuring compliance with the IT Act provisions.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1213
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to assessment u/s.153A r.w.s.153C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 for the assessment year 2005-06, concerning determination of capital gains and deduction of interest paid by the assessee.
Assessment of Capital Gains:
The case involved a search operation u/s.132 at the residence of the assessee, where incriminating documents were found regarding the sale of properties by the assessee's wife. The Assessing Officer determined capital gain on the sale of land and assessed it in the hands of the assessee. However, the CIT(Appeals) found that the Assessing Officer did not conclusively prove the extra consideration received by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) held that the capital gain should be assessed in the hands of the wife, not the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) that the Department failed to prove the consideration received was different from the registered sale deed, thus upholding the CIT(Appeals) decision.
Deduction of Interest Paid:
Regarding the deduction of interest paid by the assessee on a loan advanced to his uncle, the Assessing Officer added the entire interest amount to the assessee's income. The CIT(Appeals) allowed a deduction of a specific amount based on the evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals) decision, stating that legitimate expenses incurred for earning income should be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal confirmed the deduction of a specific amount and rejected the assessee's claim for the entire interest payment deduction, as the interest component was incurred over multiple years.
Conclusion:
Both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal, affirming the decisions of the CIT(Appeals) on the assessment of capital gains and deduction of interest paid by the assessee.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1212
Issues involved: Revenue's appeal against Ld CIT(A)'s order for assessment year 2005-06 regarding deduction u/s 80IA on bonus and compensation received by the assessee company.
Deduction u/s 80IA - Bonus and Compensation:
The dispute centered around whether the bonus of &8377; 4,65,20,000 and compensation of &8377; 6,20,00,000 received by the assessee company were eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. The Assessing Officer contended that these receipts did not qualify as eligible business receipts as they were not derived from the business. The assessee argued that both receipts were earned from the project and hence eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. Ld CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction. The Tribunal noted that the bonus and compensation should be reduced from the cost of the project, impacting depreciation claims. Citing the judgment in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd., it held that the receipts were capital in nature and should reduce the cost of construction. Consequently, the total cost of the project would decrease, affecting depreciation and gross income. The Tribunal set aside Ld CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for recalculating the income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA based on the adjusted figures. It was clarified that the book profit declared by the assessee should be assessed as per the return of income under MAT provision u/s 115JB. The Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, with the order pronounced on 26th March, 2010.
........
|
9911796707
