|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 727 Records
-
2007 (4) TMI 726
Challenge to the words "and certified by the Central Board of Film Certification" in Regulation 10(d) and (e) - (i) Whether restricting the entry, for National Film Awards, to only films certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of film makers, violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- . The government is not interested in evaluating or giving an award to a film which may never be seen by the public, or at all events never be seen in an 'uncensored' form. Its object is to select the best from among those which the public can see and enjoy or gain knowledge. The said policy neither relates to nor interferes with the right of a film maker either to make films, or to apply for certificate or to exhibit the films. There is nothing illogical, unreasonable or arbitrary about a policy to select only the best from among films certified for public exhibition. We cannot, in judicial review, change that policy by requiring the Government to select the best from among 'films made' instead of 'films made and certified for public exhibition'. We, therefore, hold that the requirement that films should have been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification between 1.1.2005 and 31.12.2005 for entry for the 53rd National Film Awards is not an unreasonable restriction of any fundamental right of the respondents or other film makers.
(ii) Whether the Directorate, having permitted entry of films in an uncensored format for awards in Non-Commercial Film Festivals, should do so in respect of National Film Awards also - HELD THAT:- When the purpose and object of Film Festivals and National Film Awards are completely different, the conditions that are made applicable, or the exemptions that are granted, in respect of Film Festivals, cannot automatically be applied to National Film Awards. The two being unequal and dissimilar, the question of applying the same standards or norms does not arise. Nor can application of different norms to Film Festivals and National Film Awards, lead to a complaint of discrimination. Applying different yardsticks to different events, to achieve different objects cannot be considered as discriminatory.
(iii) Whether exempting films made by Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan from the requirement of certification by the Board, while requiring certification by the Board in the case of others, is discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- In this case, we have already found that the NFA policy restricting the entry to only films certified by the Board is valid and does not violate Article 19(1)(a). It therefore follows that a film maker does not have any right to claim that he is entitled to enter his films without certification by the Board. When a film maker complains of discrimination on the ground that films made by Film Institutes and films entered by Doordarshan have been exempted from the requirement of certification, and claims similar exemption, the question that requires examination is whether the exemption that has been granted to Film Institutes and Doordarshan is legal. If it is illegal, he cannot claim a similar illegal exemption in his favour.
CONCLUSION - A film-maker can challenge an illegal exemption in favour of Film Institutes and Doordarshan under clauses (f) and (g) of Regulation 10, but cannot claim a similar exemption by placing reliance on such illegality. Therefore the challenge to the words "and certified by the Central Board of Film Certification" in Regulation 10(d) and (e) has no merit. The respondents have not challenged the validity of Regulation 10(f) and (g) granting exemption to films made by Film Institutes or films entered by Doordarshan. Therefore, no relief can be granted to respondents in that behalf.
Thus, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the Judgment of the High Court except the direction to permit entry of non- feature films in digital format.
-
2007 (4) TMI 725
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of advertisement expenditure.
2. Deletion of disallowance of royalty payments.
3. Deletion of disallowance of bad debts and irrecoverable advances.
4. Exclusion of excise duty from total turnover for calculating deduction under section 80HHC.
5. Deletion of disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss.
6. Deletion of addition on account of under-valuation of closing stock.
7. Disallowance under section 43B for delayed payment of PF and ESI contributions.
8. Deletion of disallowance of amortized expenses.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of Disallowance of Advertisement Expenditure:
The revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 1,02,62,333 disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) as capital expenditure. The AO argued that the advertisement expenses conferred an enduring benefit, enhancing brand equity. The CIT(A) allowed the entire expenditure as revenue in nature. The tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT, emphasizing that the advantage was not in the capital field but facilitated trading operations.
2. Deletion of Disallowance of Royalty Payments:
The AO treated Rs. 10,61,000 paid as royalty to a Japanese company as capital expenditure, arguing it conferred an enduring benefit. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, noting the royalty was linked to sales and not a lump sum for acquiring rights. The tribunal upheld this, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Gotan Lime Syndicate v. CIT, where royalty payments were considered revenue expenditure.
3. Deletion of Disallowance of Bad Debts and Irrecoverable Advances:
The AO disallowed bad debts and irrecoverable advances written off, totaling Rs. 1,24,32,005, arguing they were not bona fide. The CIT(A) allowed these deductions, noting they were written off as per section 36(1)(vii) and were business losses. The tribunal upheld this, emphasizing the amounts were offered for taxation in earlier years and written off due to genuine business reasons.
4. Exclusion of Excise Duty from Total Turnover for Calculating Deduction under Section 80HHC:
The AO included excise duty in total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC. The CIT(A) directed its exclusion, following precedents from the Bombay and Rajasthan High Courts, which stated excise duty collected is not income but a fiduciary duty payable to the state. The tribunal upheld this exclusion.
5. Deletion of Disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss:
The AO disallowed Rs. 53,99,000 as capital loss, arguing it was a notional liability. The CIT(A) allowed the loss related to import of raw materials as revenue expenditure but disallowed Rs. 1,92,000 related to working capital repayment. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Satluj Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., treating the loss as revenue in nature.
6. Deletion of Addition on Account of Under-Valuation of Closing Stock:
The AO added Rs. 36,33,433 for under-valuation of closing stock, citing an increase in defective TV sets. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the defective sets were identified through a quality audit and were a negligible percentage of total production. The tribunal upheld this, recognizing it as a correction of inflated stock values from previous years.
7. Disallowance under Section 43B for Delayed Payment of PF and ESI Contributions:
The AO disallowed Rs. 28,24,689 for delayed PF and ESI contributions. The CIT(A) allowed payments made within the grace period but disallowed Rs. 1,58,179 paid beyond it. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT and the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd., confirming the disallowance for payments beyond the grace period.
8. Deletion of Disallowance of Amortized Expenses:
The AO amortized Rs. 31,61,789 paid for technical advice over five years, allowing only Rs. 6,32,358. The CIT(A) allowed the entire expenditure as revenue, following the Supreme Court's decision in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. The tribunal upheld this, noting the expenditure facilitated efficient business operations without affecting fixed capital.
Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal in part, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues except for the disallowance under section 43B for delayed ESI contributions.
-
2007 (4) TMI 724
Quashing the order of detention - delay in disposing of the writ petition filed by the detenu - Powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Act’) r/w Home Department’s Order - infringement of public order - - HELD THAT:- The representation is to be considered in its right perspective keeping in view the fact that the detention of the detenu is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, and infringement of the constitutional right conferred under Article 22(5) invalidates the detention order. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law.
In the result, the High Court’s impugned order is clearly indefensible and is set aside - Appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 723
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the refund claim for service tax paid by the appellants for the period from 17-10-1998 to 30-6-1999, the liability of service users on C & F agents post-16-10-1998 as per Finance Act, 2000, and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Refund Claim Issue:
The respondents, manufacturers of Cement and Clinker, filed a refund claim for service tax paid to clearing and forwarding agents from 17-10-1998 to 30-6-1999. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund based on the decision in Laghu Udyog Bharati case, holding that the service users are not liable to pay service tax. The revenue appealed, citing the Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. case, which stated that the amendments in 2003 did not overrule the decision in Laghu Udyog Bharati. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that no service tax liability can be imposed on the recipient of C & F agent services beyond 16-10-1998.
Liability Issue Post-16-10-1998:
The revenue argued that the Ministry's clarification and the amended Service Tax Rules, 1994, made the service receiver liable to pay service tax even after 16-10-1998. However, the Tribunal referred to the CESTAT's Chennai Bench decision, which held that the amended provisions could not create tax liability for clearing and forwarding services post-16-10-1998. The Tribunal concluded that no service tax liability can be imposed on the recipient of C & F agent services beyond 16-10-1998 based on the law as interpreted by the CESTAT's Chennai Bench.
Interpretation of Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The Tribunal analyzed the amendments made in terms of section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000, which made the recipient of clearing and forwarding services liable for service tax from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998. It held that the revenue cannot collect service tax from the recipient for any period beyond 16-10-1998. The Tribunal emphasized that section 117 is procedural and does not alter the substantive provision brought by section 116. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was rejected based on the interpretation provided by the CESTAT's Chennai Bench.
-
2007 (4) TMI 722
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Whether the assessment of the appellant's wife's income as the appellant's income was arbitrary.
2. Whether the non-acceptance of a gift by the authorities was discriminatory.
3. Whether the authorities failed to appreciate the evidence showing the genuineness of the gift.
Issue 1: Assessment of Appellant's Wife's Income:
The appellant filed his income tax return for the assessment year 1993-94, declaring his total income. Subsequently, search and seizure operations were conducted, and the Assessing Officer questioned certain amounts received by the appellant and his wife. The Assessing Officer treated a specific amount as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) later deleted this addition, along with another addition made for household expenses. The CIT(A) justified the deletion of a gift amount by emphasizing the close relationship between the donor and the appellant's family, despite the lack of blood relations. The CIT(A) also highlighted the proper banking transactions as evidence of the gift's genuineness. Consequently, the addition of the gift amount was deleted.
Issue 2: Non-Acceptance of Gift by Authorities:
The Tribunal held that the burden of proving the genuineness of the gift rested on the assessee. Despite some evidence presented, including drafts purchased in Singapore and remitted to India, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish the gift's authenticity. The Tribunal noted the lack of proof regarding the donor's financial status and the source of the gifted amount. The Tribunal set aside the deletion of the gift amount by the CIT(A) and restored the addition. However, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of another gift amount made to the appellant's wife, considering her a separate assessee.
Issue 3: Failure to Appreciate Evidence:
Upon review, the Court found that crucial aspects, such as the donor's capacity, identity, and source of the gift, were not adequately established. The Court raised doubts about the circumstances of the gift, including the use of US dollars in Singapore despite the donor's existing bank account there. The Court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the gift's authenticity. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal as misconceived.
This summary highlights the key legal issues, arguments, and decisions made in the judgment without disclosing any specific party names.
-
2007 (4) TMI 721
Issues involved:
The petition challenges the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Application under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act
The petitioner bank advanced a loan to respondents, leading to outstanding dues. Proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act were initiated, followed by an application under Section 14 to recover possession. The District Magistrate rejected the application, prompting the challenge in this petition.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 14 of the Securitisation Act
Section 14 empowers the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist in taking possession of secured assets. The authority's role is ministerial, limited to assisting the secured creditor without adjudicatory powers. Any disputes must be addressed through the Tribunal as per Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.
Issue 3: Jurisdiction under the Securitisation Act
Section 34 divests civil courts of jurisdiction in matters determinable by the Tribunal. The legislative scheme provides for statutory remedies before the Tribunal, prohibiting civil courts from interfering. The authority under Section 14 can only assist the secured creditor, not adjudicate disputes.
Judgment:
The District Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by making unwarranted observations in the impugned order. The order is quashed, and the proceedings are restored to the District Magistrate for a lawful decision. The petitioner's application is revived, directing the District Magistrate to facilitate possession transfer to the petitioner. The petition is allowed, with no costs imposed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 720
The Bombay High Court heard a petition seeking implementation of a Customs Commissioner's order from 18th January 2007, which favored the petitioner. The respondents had filed an appeal with CESTAT but had not obtained a stay on the order. The court granted interim relief as requested by the petitioner.
-
2007 (4) TMI 719
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of relief u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Ownership and possession of the Khar property.
3. Application of legal precedents and interpretation of "ownership" under the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Denial of Relief u/s 54F
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the assessing officer's decision to deny relief u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed exemption on long-term capital gains from the sale of shares by investing in an additional share of a residential property. The assessing officer denied this claim, citing that the assessee already owned another residential property, which disqualified her from the exemption under the proviso to Section 54F.
Issue 2: Ownership and Possession of the Khar Property
The assessing officer noted that the assessee owned another residential property at Khar, which was purchased in the assessment year 1992-93 and was tenanted. Despite the conveyance deed being registered later in 1999, the assessee had been showing income from this property in her tax returns, indicating possession and ownership. The CIT(A) upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court's judgments in CIT v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. and Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT, which emphasized possession and dominion over the property as determining factors for ownership.
Issue 3: Application of Legal Precedents and Interpretation of "Ownership"
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and legal precedents. The assessee argued that the pre-amended provisions of Section 54F did not disqualify her as she only held a 1/4th share in the flat at the time of transfer and later increased her share. The Tribunal referenced the case of Smt. Varsha P. Thanawala, where similar facts led to the allowance of deduction under Section 54F. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case due to the additional ownership of the Khar property, which was in possession since 1992-93 and generated rental income, thus establishing ownership despite the later conveyance deed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not meet the conditions for exemption under Section 54F due to owning another residential property at Khar on the date of transfer of the original asset. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.
-
2007 (4) TMI 718
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal in ITA No. 375/2007 as no substantial question of law arose, referring to a previous order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Devi Dass Mahlhan. A similar appeal for the same assessee in ITA No. 333/2007 was also dismissed earlier.
-
2007 (4) TMI 717
Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal without interference, condoning the delay. (2007 (4) TMI 717 - SC)
-
2007 (4) TMI 716
Cenvat credit - failed to maintain separate inventory and accounts for receipt and consumption - Interest u/s 11AB r/w Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, demanded - Manufacture of both dutiable final products and exempted goods - whether M/s. MRPL the appellant has to pay an amount equal to 10% of the total price of the exempted goods viz., SKO and LPG charged by them at the time of clearance from the factory - HELD THAT:- This bench in a large number of cases has followed the ratio of the decision in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that even when common inputs are used for exempted and dutiable goods and if the appellant is not in a position to maintain separate accounts if he reverses the credit attributable to the inputs contained in exempted products, then there is no requirement of payment of 8/ 10% on the value of the exempted goods.
Thus, we allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief.
-
2007 (4) TMI 715
Issues involved: Registration u/s 30-11-2004, liability to service tax, waiver of penalty.
Registration and liability to service tax: The appellant was registered before 30-11-2004 and found liable for service tax on services rendered. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) acknowledged the appellant's proactive approach in seeking registration before the deadline and voluntarily depositing the taxes and interest demanded. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty for breach of law should not be imposed in such circumstances, citing precedents like Hindusthan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa and E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner. Therefore, no penalty was deemed applicable on the appellant.
Verification of deposits: The Tribunal directed verification of any deposits made by the appellant towards interest and service tax, with instructions to recover any shortfalls and refund any excess amounts. The impugned order by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) was modified accordingly, and the appeal was allowed partly.
-
2007 (4) TMI 714
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the writ petition.
2. Repeal of Rule 39 and its impact on the writ petitioner's application.
3. Vested rights in the grant of mining leases.
Summary:
1. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The primary issue before the Court was the delay in filing the writ petition. The State Government rejected the writ petitioner's application on 8.10.1996, but the writ petitioner did not challenge this decision until 27.4.2003. The Court found the writ petition to be "hopelessly belated" and agreed with the High Court's dismissal on this ground. The Court emphasized that a person who waits for such a long time without a justifiable reason cannot be granted any benefit.
2. Repeal of Rule 39 and Its Impact:
Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, which allowed the State Government to grant or renew quarry leases in special cases, was repealed on 27.6.1996. The writ petitioner's application was pending when Rule 39 was repealed. The Court noted that since Rule 39 was repealed within the time frame directed by the High Court, the basis for the writ petitioner's application was "totally knocked out." Consequently, the authorities could not accede to the writ petitioner's request as the rule under which the application was made no longer existed.
3. Vested Rights in the Grant of Mining Leases:
The Court reiterated that no person has a vested right to the grant or renewal of a mining lease. The application must be dealt with according to the rules in force at the time of its disposal. The Court cited previous judgments, including *State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone* and *P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India*, to support this position. The Court concluded that the writ petitioner had no vested right to have his application considered under the repealed Rule 39.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decision on both the grounds of delay and the merits. The Court found no justification for the writ petitioner's long delay in challenging the rejection of his application and confirmed that the repeal of Rule 39 invalidated the basis for his claim. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 713
Issues involved: Application for interim stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalty u/s 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Summary:
The applicant sought interim stay and waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,35,100 imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority did not impose any penalty under Section 76 for failure to collect or pay Service tax. The assessee appealed against the order of the adjudicating authority to the extent it went against the assessee. However, Revenue did not prefer any appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority under Section 85. The Commissioner, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 84 against the order made by the adjudicating authority, took up the matter of non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 and made the impugned order imposing penalty under Section 76. The order was made after the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). It appears that for imposition of penalty under Section 76, no mens rea is required and mere failure to pay tax was sufficient to attract the said provisions.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it was directed that on the appellant depositing Rs. 20,000 within six weeks, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amount of penalty under the impugned order of the Commissioner made on 23-11-06. The application was disposed of accordingly, and the matter was posted for compliance report on 12-6-07.
-
2007 (4) TMI 712
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to the respondent's factory.
2. Determination of the date from which the Act of 1952 should apply.
3. Whether M/s. Moti Warping Factory and M/s. Jyoti Sizing Factory should be treated as one establishment under the Act of 1952.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
The core issue was whether the respondent's factory was correctly covered under the Act of 1952 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The respondent argued that their factory was entitled to a five-year exemption from the Act of 1952 starting from 23.8.1973, as the number of employees never exceeded fifty during that period. The Commissioner, however, determined that the factory was entitled to only a three-year exemption and applied the Act from 31.8.1976, considering the combined employee strength of M/s. Moti Warping Factory and M/s. Jyoti Sizing Factory.
2. Determination of the Date from which the Act of 1952 should Apply:
The dispute centered on whether the Act should apply from 1.9.1978, as asserted by the respondent, or from 31.8.1976, as determined by the Commissioner. The Commissioner's decision was based on the addition of employees from M/s. Jyoti Sizing Factory, leading to the applicability of the Act from 31.8.1976. The respondent contested this, arguing that both factories were separate entities with distinct management, financial control, and workforce.
3. Whether M/s. Moti Warping Factory and M/s. Jyoti Sizing Factory should be Treated as One Establishment:
The Commissioner concluded that the two factories should be treated as one establishment based on functional integrity and unity of purpose. This decision was supported by evidence showing significant business transactions between the two factories and their geographical proximity. The respondent provided documentation and affidavits to argue that the factories were separate entities with no common management or inter-transferable employees. The learned Single Judge reversed the Commissioner's order, finding no functional integrity or common control between the two factories.
Judgment Analysis:
Commissioner's Findings:
The Commissioner found that both factories were managed by members of the same family and engaged in related activities (warping and sizing of yarn). The Commissioner noted significant sales and purchases between the two factories, indicating functional integration. Despite separate registrations under various acts, the Commissioner held that the test of functional integrity and unity of purpose was satisfied, and thus, both factories should be treated as one establishment under the Act of 1952.
Learned Single Judge's Findings:
The learned Single Judge disagreed with the Commissioner, holding that there was no common supervisory, managerial, financial control, or functional integrity between the two factories. The Judge emphasized that the relationship between the partners alone did not establish functional integrity and that separate registrations and distinct operations indicated that the factories were separate entities. The Judge reversed the Commissioner's order without providing detailed reasons for rejecting the Commissioner's findings.
High Court's Conclusion:
The High Court scrutinized both the Commissioner's and the learned Single Judge's findings. Citing precedents, the High Court emphasized the importance of factors such as unity of ownership, management, functional integrity, and geographical proximity in determining whether two units constitute one establishment. The Court found that the Commissioner's detailed analysis and objective consideration of evidence demonstrated functional integrity and unity of purpose between the two factories. The High Court concluded that the learned Single Judge erred in reversing the Commissioner's order without adequately addressing the reasons provided by the Commissioner.
Final Decision:
The High Court allowed the special appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and restored the Commissioner's order. The Court held that the two factories should be treated as one establishment under the Act of 1952, and the provisions of the Act applied from 31.8.1976. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 711
Right to continue in service - Guilty of Misconduct - name removed from the post of Forester - Notified vacancies of Foresters - name of the respondent got registered with the Employment Exchange only in the year 1976 - interim order passed to consider his case for appointment - Respondent was selected having been placed in Sl. No. 3 in the merit list - HELD THAT:- A selected candidate, it is now well settled, has no legal right to be appointed automatically. It is also not a case where an order has been passed without application of mind.
It is also not a case where the appellant had made up its mind and the notice had been issued only by way of a formality. M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,[2006 (12) TMI 203 - SUPREME COURT]. The Tribunal, as noticed hereinbefore, directed the respondent to show his cause. Ordinarily, no writ petition would be maintainable at that stage.
Two other aspects of the matter cannot also be lost sight of. Respondent was not appointed pursuant to selection made in his favour. No offer of appointment was issued by the appellant. He was appointed pursuant to an interim order passed by High Court. The High Court ordinarily should not have done so.
In any event, the writ petition having been dismissed, the interim order also came to an end. It could have been directed to be continued. Respondent did not, thus, have any legal right to continue in service after dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court.
It is furthermore doubtful as to whether an original application could have been filed questioning the report of the District Employment Officer. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. Respondent may file his show cause within two weeks from date whereupon the appellants may take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
The Appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 710
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Classification of shares as stock-in-trade versus investment.
3. Allocation of interest expenditure between different lines of business.
4. Determination of speculation loss and its set-off against other income.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act:
The core issue revolves around whether the Explanation to Section 73 is applicable in the case of the assessee. The Explanation states that if any part of a company's business consists of the purchase and sale of shares, it is deemed to be carrying on a speculation business. The Revenue argued that since the assessee purchased shares for trading and treated them as stock-in-trade, the Explanation should apply. However, the assessee contended that the Explanation requires both purchase and sale of shares, and in their case, there was neither purchase nor sale during the relevant year, and historically, only a purchase had occurred without any sale.
The Tribunal concluded that the essential ingredient for the application of the Explanation is both purchase and sale of shares, not just purchase alone. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court judgment in Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd., which emphasized that both purchase and sale are necessary to constitute a trade. The Tribunal also referred to the Calcutta High Court judgment in Sun Distributors & Mining Co. Ltd., which clarified that the business should consist of both purchase and sale, even if they do not occur in the same year. Since the assessee only purchased shares and did not sell any, the Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 73 did not apply.
2. Classification of Shares as Stock-in-Trade versus Investment:
The Assessing Officer (AO) initially questioned whether the shares of M/s. Shonkh Technologies Ltd. should be treated as investments instead of stock-in-trade. The assessee responded that the shares were purchased for trading and consistently treated as trading stock in the books of account. The AO eventually accepted that the shares were held as stock-in-trade but applied the Explanation to Section 73, treating the interest expenditure on the loan used to purchase these shares as speculation loss.
The Tribunal upheld the assessee's classification of the shares as stock-in-trade, noting that the intention to trade does not become an act until it is translated into action. Since there was no sale of shares, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not engage in trading those shares, thus supporting the assessee's classification.
3. Allocation of Interest Expenditure between Different Lines of Business:
The AO and the CIT(A) both held that the interest expenditure on the loan used to purchase shares should be allocated between the share broking business and the share trading business. The AO treated the interest as speculation loss, which could not be set off against the brokerage income. The CIT(A) supported this view, relying on various judicial decisions that distinguished between share trading and share brokerage as different lines of business.
The Tribunal, however, found that the purchase of shares did not constitute a separate, independent business from the share broking business. The Tribunal emphasized that an assessee might deal in different commodities or services, which could still constitute a single, indivisible business. Therefore, the interest expenditure should not be treated as speculation loss but as part of the business expenditure.
4. Determination of Speculation Loss and Its Set-off Against Other Income:
The AO determined a speculation loss of Rs. 1,49,01,871 based on the interest expenditure and added it to the assessee's income, disallowing its set-off against brokerage income. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, relying on judicial precedents that speculation loss could not be adjusted against other income.
The Tribunal disagreed with this approach, holding that since the Explanation to Section 73 did not apply, the interest expenditure should not be treated as speculation loss. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's main business was share broking, and the purchase of shares was incidental to this business. Therefore, the interest expenditure should be allowed as a business deduction, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the authorities below were not justified in invoking the Explanation to Section 73 to disallow the interest expenditure as speculation loss. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 1,49,01,871 to the declared income was deleted. The Tribunal emphasized that both purchase and sale of shares are necessary for the application of the Explanation to Section 73, and in the absence of any sale, the Explanation could not be invoked.
-
2007 (4) TMI 709
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the order setting aside confiscation of excess goods not entered in the RG-1 register due to lack of evidence of clandestine removal. The appeal by Revenue was rejected as no intention to evade duty was found. Penalty of Rs. 2,000 was imposed for non-entry of goods in statutory records.
-
2007 (4) TMI 708
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of evidence u/s 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Opportunity to rebut evidence u/s 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
3. Genuineness of the firm.
4. Identity of Smt. Darshna Devi.
5. Existence of a genuine firm for the assessment year 1973-74.
Summary:
Issue 1: Admission of Evidence u/s 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Appeals) could admit evidence of the death of Smt. Darshna Devi without giving any opportunity to the Income-tax Officer to rebut the same, as required under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found that the death certificate was produced in the presence of the Income-tax Officer, who did not raise any objection.
Issue 2: Opportunity to Rebut Evidence u/s 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962
The Tribunal concluded that the Income-tax Officer was given a reasonable opportunity to examine/rebut the evidence in the form of a death certificate of Smt. Darshna Devi. The Tribunal noted that the death certificate was in focus during the last date of hearing and the Income-tax Officer did not raise any objection, thus satisfying the opportunity envisaged by rule 46A.
Issue 3: Genuineness of the Firm
The Tribunal held that the finding of the CIT (Appeals) regarding the genuineness of the firm was not questioned before the Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel for the revenue could not point out any material on record to show that the issue regarding the genuineness of the firm was raised before the Tribunal.
Issue 4: Identity of Smt. Darshna Devi
The Tribunal found that Smt. Darshna Devi and Smt. Darshna Devi Gupta were two different persons. The Tribunal observed that the revenue's case was based on the incorrect presumption that these two individuals were the same, which was disproven by the evidence on record.
Issue 5: Existence of a Genuine Firm for the Assessment Year 1973-74
The Tribunal concluded that a genuine firm was in existence for the assessment year 1973-74. The Tribunal noted that the death certificate and other evidence supported the existence of a genuine firm, and the registration granted under section 185(1)(a) was rightly continued.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's findings on all issues, ruling in favor of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (4) TMI 707
Issues involved: Credit of input for manufacture of Sulphuric Acid supplied under Chapter X procedure without payment of duty.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved a case where the appellants took credit of input for the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid, some of which was supplied under Chapter X procedure without duty payment. The Department demanded 8% of the value of the Sulphuric Acid supplied under Chapter X procedure due to the appellants not maintaining a separate account. The appellant's advocate cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case, M/s. Central Cables Ltd. vs. CCE, where it was held that credit is not deniable when final goods are supplied under Chapter X procedure, following the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. As the Department had accepted the Tribunal's decision in the case of Central Cables Ltd. and did not file further appeal, the Tribunal in this case set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the credit is not deniable for Sulphuric Acid supplied duty-free under Chapter X procedure.
The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, and the decision was dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
........
|
9911796707
