|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 920 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1237
The Supreme Court considered the issue of whether Rule 59(B) of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 was ultra vires Section 47A of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1899. Rule 59(B) pertains to the procedure for the assessment of the market value of property by the Registering Officer, while Section 47A deals with undervalued instruments and the determination of market value by the Collector. The High Court had held Rule 59(B) to be ultra vires, leading to the appeal.The Court applied the principle of harmonious construction to reconcile Rule 59(B) with Section 47A. It emphasized that the Court should uphold the validity of a provision unless it is clearly ultra vires. The Court found that the assessment determined under Rule 59(B) by the District Level Committee, also known as the circle rate, should not prevent the Registering Officer from referring the matter to the Collector under Section 47A if the Officer believes the actual market value exceeds the circle rate. The Court held that Rules cannot override the provisions of the Act and that the Registering Officer has the discretion to disagree with the District Level Committee's assessment and refer the matter to the Collector in certain situations.In conclusion, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling in favor of harmonizing Rule 59(B) with Section 47A. The Appeals were disposed of without costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1236
The Court addressed the application of reservation rules for Scheduled Caste candidates in aided educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh, specifically concerning Class III posts when the sanctioned cadre strength is less than five. The primary legal questions considered were whether the reservation roster can be applied to promotions in Intermediate Colleges when the number of posts is less than five, and whether there is a conflict between previous judgments regarding this issue. The relevant legal framework includes the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, and related government orders. The Court examined whether the reservation roster could be applied to a cadre with fewer than five posts, considering the statutory reservation percentage of 21% for Scheduled Castes. The Court noted that the application of the reservation roster in cases where the cadre strength is less than five would result in a reservation percentage exceeding the statutory limit, thereby violating the law established in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, which capped reservations at 50%. The judgments in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab and R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. were cited to emphasize that reservation percentages should be calculated based on the total number of posts in a cadre, not vacancies, and cannot exceed the prescribed limits. In its reasoning, the Court rejected the argument that the Government Order dated 8th March 1973, which allegedly allowed for reservation in cadres with fewer than five posts, could override the statutory limits. The Court clarified that neither the Government Order nor the 1994 Act supports applying the reservation roster to a cadre with fewer than five posts. The Court concluded that the rule of reservation and the roster system could only be applied when there are five or more posts in a cadre, ensuring that the reservation percentage does not exceed the statutory limit. The decision in Mahendra Kumar Gond's case was deemed per incuriam because it failed to consider earlier judgments that correctly interpreted the law. The Court approved the judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case as correctly laying down the law. In summary, the Court held that the reservation roster cannot be applied to a cadre with fewer than five posts, whether for promotion or direct recruitment, under the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994. The decision in Mahendra Kumar Gond's case was not approved, and the judgment in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh's case was affirmed as the correct legal position.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1235
The Gujarat High Court dismissed appeals challenging a consolidated order made by the Tribunal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed based on a previous judgment dated 6.5.2010 in similar cases.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1234
Issues:
1. Exemption of interest income under the principle of mutuality.
2. Taxability of donations received for sports tournaments.
3. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Exemption of interest income under the principle of mutuality
The appeal raised concerns regarding the interest income received by the assessee from investments made in non-member banks. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the jurisdictional Madras High Court, which held that the interest income did not align with the club's objectives and was not linked to mutual interests. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of mutuality, stating that income from non-members cannot be exempted under this principle. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue, denying the exemption for the interest income.
Issue 2: Taxability of donations received for sports tournaments
The second issue involved donations received for sports tournaments, which were considered as advertisements from non-members. Following the same principle as the interest income, the Tribunal ruled that such receipts from non-members were taxable, and the principle of mutuality did not apply to exempt this income.
Issue 3: Levy of interest under section 234B
Regarding the levy of interest under section 234B, the authorized representative argued that both interest income and advertisement receipts were subject to Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), thus negating the imposition of interest under section 234B. The Tribunal agreed that TDS was applicable to both types of income, and as per the provisions of section 234B Explanation 1(1), interest under section 234B was not leviable on incomes where TDS was required and duly deducted. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to remove the interest levy on these incomes, partially allowing the assessee's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the taxability of interest income and donations from non-members while directing the deletion of interest under section 234B due to TDS compliance.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1233
Issues Involved:
Challenge to penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on revised return filed after obtaining undisclosed income details from a third party.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Challenge to Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c)
The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's order canceling the penalty imposed on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The crux of the issue was whether the revised return, disclosing additional income after receiving details of cash payments from M/s Apollo Hospitals Ltd., was filed voluntarily or to evade penalty for willful suppression of income.
Analysis: The Assessee, an orthopedic surgeon, filed a revised return under Section 139(5) of the IT Act after the Revenue discovered undisclosed payments made by M/s Apollo Hospitals Ltd. The Revenue argued that the revised return was a result of the discovered documents and not voluntary, justifying the penalty for income concealment. However, the Court emphasized that for penalty imposition, there must be a specific finding of deliberate and willful suppression by the Assessee. The Court referred to relevant case laws, including Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills, highlighting the necessity of proving willful non-disclosure for penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Judgment: The Court found no evidence of willful or deliberate suppression by the Assessee in filing the revised return. As per the precedents and facts of the case, the Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was upheld. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ruling in favor of the Assessee based on the lack of substantial proof of intentional concealment of income.
This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, relevant legal principles, and the final decision rendered by the Court, providing a detailed understanding of the case.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1232
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of applications u/s 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents by CBI.
2. Alleged withholding of evidence by CBI.
3. Fair trial and the rights of the accused.
4. Relevance and necessity of documents for the defense.
Summary:
1. Dismissal of Applications u/s 91 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners, accused police officials, filed applications u/s 91 Cr.P.C. seeking directions for CBI to produce certain documents and statements allegedly withheld. The trial court dismissed these applications, noting that the accused did not specify the relevance of the documents. The High Court upheld this dismissal, emphasizing that the accused must disclose the nature and relevance of the documents sought.
2. Alleged Withholding of Evidence by CBI:
The accused argued that CBI had withheld crucial documents and statements, which were necessary for their defense. They claimed that non-supply of these documents violated principles of natural justice. The High Court noted that the accused had not shown how these documents were relevant to their defense or cross-examination of witnesses.
3. Fair Trial and the Rights of the Accused:
The High Court emphasized that a fair trial must be consistent and timely, benefiting not only the accused but also the society, victim, and witnesses. It noted that the trial had been delayed significantly and that the applications seemed intended to further delay the proceedings.
4. Relevance and Necessity of Documents for the Defense:
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 91 Cr.P.C. in *State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi*, stating that the necessity and desirability of documents must be examined in the context of the trial stage. The accused cannot demand documents as a matter of right without showing their relevance. The court found that the accused had not demonstrated how the documents were necessary for their defense.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the trial court rightly dismissed the applications, as the accused failed to specify the relevance of the documents sought. The judgments cited by the petitioners did not support their case, as they were context-specific and did not establish a general principle applicable to the present case.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1231
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plea of "no means" is available to a husband against proposed arrest and detention u/s 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in execution of a decree for money passed by the Family Court.
2. Applicability of proviso (c) to Section 51 of the CPC.
3. Determination of fiduciary capacity in the context of husband-wife relationship.
4. Scope of execution of the decree amount.
Summary:
Issue 1: Plea of "No Means" Against Arrest and Detention u/s 51 CPC
The court examined whether a husband can plead "no means" to avoid arrest and detention u/s 51 CPC in the execution of a decree for money passed by the Family Court in favor of his wife. The husband was initially set ex parte, and despite being allowed to participate later, he did not cooperate, leading to a decree directing him to pay Rs. 3,25,500/- along with interest and costs. The Family Court concluded that the husband had no means and was not liable to be arrested and detained, which was challenged by the wife.
Issue 2: Applicability of Proviso (c) to Section 51 CPC
The court considered whether proviso (c) to Section 51 CPC, which allows for arrest and detention if the decree is for a sum for which the judgment-debtor was bound in a fiduciary capacity to account, applies. The court referred to Section 51 CPC and emphasized that for arrest and detention to be avoided, the judgment-debtor must not fall within the scope of clauses (a), (b), and (c) of the proviso to Section 51.
Issue 3: Determination of Fiduciary Capacity in Husband-Wife Relationship
The court analyzed whether the husband-wife relationship constitutes a fiduciary relationship and whether the husband was bound in such capacity to account for the amounts. The court referred to various legal dictionaries and precedents, including the decision in Prathibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, which held that a husband is liable to account for the wife's property entrusted to him. The court concluded that the husband-wife relationship is inherently fiduciary, and the husband is bound to account for the wife's property entrusted to him.
Issue 4: Scope of Execution of the Decree Amount
The court examined the specific claims under the decree:
1. Currency brought as share in parental property: Rs. 1,50,000/-
2. Value of 22 sovereigns of gold ornaments: Rs. 88,000/-
3. Value of other articles entrusted: Rs. 17,500/-
4. Amounts received subsequently for various purposes: Rs. 70,000/-
The court held that claims under heads (1), (2), and (3) fall within the scope of proviso (c) to Section 51 CPC, but the claim under head (4) does not. Therefore, the plea of "no means" is not available for the amount of Rs. 2,55,500/- (total Rs. 3,25,500/- minus Rs. 70,000/-).
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part. The court directed the Family Court to proceed with the execution petition for Rs. 2,55,500/- along with interest and proportionate costs, rejecting the husband's plea of "no means" for this amount. The parties were instructed to appear before the Family Court on 30-8-2010 to continue the proceedings. The court appreciated the assistance rendered by the advocates and the amicus curiae.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1230
The Gujarat High Court allowed the respondent to continue the investigation and inquiry but cannot pass a final order without the court's permission. Notice returnable on 27th July, 2010. Direct service is permitted.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1229
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appeal regarding the application of the doctrine of mutuality to interest income on FDRs and mutual funds invested with non-members. The court cited a similar case and upheld the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1228
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) confirming order of A.O. u/s 154 of the I.T. Act on various grounds.
Issue 1: Whether rectification in the order of the A.O. is possible u/s 154 in light of new evidence.
The assessee purchased properties and explained the source of investment. The assessing officer made an addition u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 stating the vendor had unilaterally cancelled the agreements. The assessing officer dismissed the application, considering it a revision or review of the assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the decision.
Issue 2: Examination of new evidence in rectification application.
The assessee contended no sale consideration was paid to the vendor, supported by a cancellation deed. The assessing officer had estimated creditworthiness of persons involved and made an addition. The Tribunal noted contradictions in the statements regarding payment of consideration. The cancellation deed, filed later, raised doubts about the nature of transactions. The Tribunal emphasized the need to examine the cancellation deed for justice.
Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the A.O. to admit the cancellation deed and re-examine the issue in light of the new evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ensuring justice by considering all relevant documents in the assessment process.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1227
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and scope of 'dowry demand' under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning 'dowry death'.
3. Evaluation of evidence and delay in lodging the FIR.
4. Quantum of punishment.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Definition and Scope of 'Dowry Demand':
The appellant contended that not every demand by the husband or his family members qualifies as a 'dowry demand' under Section 2 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court analyzed the definition of 'dowry' under Section 2 of the Act, which includes any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage. The court emphasized that the expressions 'or any time after marriage' and 'in connection with the marriage' have wide meanings, intended to cover all demands related to the marriage, whether made before, during, or after the marriage.
2. Applicability of Section 304B IPC:
Section 304B IPC pertains to 'dowry death' and requires that the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives 'soon before her death' in connection with any demand for dowry. The court highlighted the essential ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 304B IPC:
- Death caused by burns, bodily injury, or under abnormal circumstances within 7 years of marriage.
- Cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives for or in connection with any demand for dowry 'soon before her death'.
The court noted that the expression 'soon before her death' should be interpreted reasonably, considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and must show a proximate link between the cruelty and the death.
3. Evaluation of Evidence and Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The appellant argued that there was a delay in registering the FIR, which created doubt about the prosecution's case. The court found that the incident occurred at 4.00 p.m. on 16.05.1988, and the FIR was lodged on 17.05.1988. The court reasoned that the complainant's focus would naturally be on saving the deceased rather than immediately reporting to the police. The court considered the delay reasonable and not indicative of any planned effort to falsely implicate the accused. The court also evaluated the evidence, including the statements of the deceased's family members and the cross-examination of the defense witnesses, and found that the prosecution had established the demand for dowry and the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased.
4. Quantum of Punishment:
The court noted that the accused was not present at the time of the incident and that the marriage had lasted for only one and a half years. The court also considered that the accused's mother and brother had been acquitted for lack of evidence and that the accused was a young person of 48 years. In light of these factors, the court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to reduce the sentence to the minimum provided by law, i.e., 7 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partially accepted, and the accused-appellant's sentence was reduced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. The court upheld the conviction under Section 304B IPC but modified the sentence considering the circumstances of the case. The accused was ordered to be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of his sentence.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1226
Issues Involved:
1. Existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(2)(k) of the India-UK tax treaty.
2. Adjustments in earnings of the PE based on prevailing market prices under Article 7(2).
3. Taxability of reimbursement of expenditure.
4. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act.
5. Application of the "force of attraction" principle in computing profits attributable to the PE.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Existence of Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(2)(k) of the India-UK tax treaty:
The tribunal examined whether the assessee had a PE in India under Article 5(2)(k). The assessee argued that Article 5(2)(k) should be read in conjunction with Article 5(1), meaning that the basic conditions of Article 5(1) must be satisfied for a PE to exist. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that Article 5(2)(k) is a standalone provision and does not require the conditions of Article 5(1) to be met. The tribunal also dismissed the contention that professional services can only be "rendered" and not "furnished," thus falling outside the scope of Article 5(2)(k). The tribunal found that the assessee had a PE in India as the services were rendered for more than 90 days within a twelve-month period.
2. Adjustments in earnings of the PE based on prevailing market prices under Article 7(2):
The assessee argued that the profits attributable to the PE should be computed based on the prevailing market rates for similar services in India, rather than the actual billing amounts. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that Article 7(2) does not permit substitution of actual transaction values with hypothetical market rates. The tribunal emphasized that the purpose of Article 7(2) is to ensure that intra-organization transactions are recognized and valued at arm's length prices, but it does not extend to transactions with independent entities.
3. Taxability of reimbursement of expenditure:
The Assessing Officer had treated 50% of the reimbursements of expenses as income, while the CIT(A) reduced this to 15%. The tribunal found that the reimbursements were for specific and actual expenses incurred by the assessee and did not involve any mark-up. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support these claims and that the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance was based on surmises and conjectures. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance and held that no part of the reimbursements should be treated as income.
4. Levy of interest under section 234B of the Income Tax Act:
The CIT(A) had held that interest under section 234B was not chargeable as all sums chargeable to tax were subject to deduction of tax at source under section 195. The tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Special Bench decision in Motorola Inc Vs DCIT and the jurisdictional High Court's approval in DIT Vs NGC Network LLC.
5. Application of the "force of attraction" principle in computing profits attributable to the PE:
The CIT(A) had held that only the income related to services performed in India was taxable, not appreciating the "force of attraction" principle in Article 7(1). The tribunal disagreed, stating that Article 7(1) includes profits "directly or indirectly attributable to the PE," thereby incorporating the "force of attraction" rule. This rule extends taxability to all profits from services rendered to Indian projects, whether performed in India or outside. The tribunal restored the Assessing Officer's order, which taxed the entire income from Indian projects.
Outcome:
- Assessee's Appeal: Partly allowed. The tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance of expenses but upheld the existence of a PE and the method of computing profits without adjustments for market rates.
- Assessing Officer's Appeal: Partly allowed. The tribunal upheld the application of the "force of attraction" principle and restored the Assessing Officer's order on this issue. The tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the non-levy of interest under section 234B.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1225
Issues Involved:
1. Disclosure of information regarding the processing of applications.
2. Disclosure of disaggregated marks in the promotion process.
3. Reimbursement of certain amounts and arrears of HRA and CCA.
4. Penalty proceedings u/s 20 of the RTI Act against the CPIO.
Summary:
1. Disclosure of Information Regarding the Processing of Applications:
The State Bank of India (SBI) was directed by the Central Information Centre (CIC) to provide clear and specified information on how the respondent's applications dated 25th January 2007, 9th April 2008, and 8th May 2008 were processed and dealt with by the competent authority. The respondent had sought details on the actual position of his applications, steps taken on them, and internal correspondence related to his applications. The CIC found that the CPIO had not indicated the provision under the RTI Act under which the information sought could be denied.
2. Disclosure of Disaggregated Marks in the Promotion Process:
The respondent requested information on the marks awarded to him in the promotion process, including section-wise details of marks obtained in written, interview, and Performance Appraisal Form (PAF). The CPIO initially declined to provide this information, citing that the details of marks obtained in PAF and promotion information are kept secret. However, the CIC directed the disclosure of these marks, stating that the information concerning the respondent himself is not exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The court upheld this view, emphasizing that the purpose of adverse entries in ACR is to enable the employee to improve performance, which cannot be achieved if the information is withheld.
3. Reimbursement of Certain Amounts and Arrears of HRA and CCA:
The respondent also raised issues concerning the reimbursement of certain amounts and arrears of House Rent Allowance (HRA) and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA). The court did not find any specific legal contention or ruling on this issue in the judgment.
4. Penalty Proceedings u/s 20 of the RTI Act Against the CPIO:
The CIC directed the CPIO to explain why penalty proceedings u/s 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated for not providing the information sought by the respondent. The court did not specifically address the penalty proceedings but focused on the disclosure of information.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CIC's order directing the disclosure of the requested information to the respondent. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in public authorities as per the RTI Act and rejected the petitioner's arguments that the information was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1224
Issues involved: Government orders mandating deduction of 0.25% from contractors' bills for contribution to National Academy of Construction (NAC) challenged as lacking legal sanction.
Construction Contracts Regulation:
The construction of Roads and Buildings (R&B) in Andhra Pradesh by the Government is regulated by the Andhra Pradesh Detailed Standard Specification, Law of Contracts, and Tax Laws. The R&B contractor is required to execute the contract in the prescribed form, which comprehensively provides for terms and conditions, tax payments, deductions, dispute resolution, etc., either through arbitration or in a Civil Court.
Establishment of NAC and Forced Contributions:
In 1998, the Government established the National Academy of Construction (NAC) to promote the construction industry's development. Government orders mandated contractors to contribute 0.25% of the gross bill amount to NAC, initially on a voluntary basis but later made mandatory through circular memoranda and subsequent orders.
Legal Challenge and Court Decision:
Government orders G.O.Ms.No.92 and G.O.Ms.No.98 were challenged in court, contending that the deductions lacked legal authority. The Single Judge set aside the orders, stating that the deductions were not backed by any existing law, and the Builders Association of India's resolution did not override the petitioners' right to challenge the orders.
Contractual Disputes and Affidavit Evidence:
The petitioners asserted that their contracts did not include clauses authorizing deductions for NAC contributions, which remained uncontradicted in the counter affidavits. The court emphasized the significance of uncontraverted affidavit averments in deciding disputes based on affidavit evidence.
Comparison with Excise Laws Litigation:
The judgment referenced cases involving levy and collection of charges in excise laws, highlighting the necessity for statutory backing for such expropriations to be constitutional. The court distinguished cases where statutory authority was lacking for levies on entities not directly involved in the resolutions prompting the contributions.
Final Decision:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the Single Judge's decision that the Government orders lacked legal sanction and could not be enforced against contractors. The mandatory contributions to NAC were deemed impermissible under the law, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1223
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the following issues:
1. Allowability of depreciation on capital assets when deduction for capital expenditure has already been allowed.
2. Justification of double deduction on depreciation in light of relevant legal precedents.
3. Restoration of issue to allow set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses.
4. Direction to consider excess amount of income application for adjustment in the current year.
5. Allowance of payment to Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board as application of income for charitable purpose.
Issue 1: Allowability of depreciation on capital assets:
The Assessee, a Market Committee registered under Section 12AA of the Act, claimed depreciation and deduction for contributions made to its apex body. The Assessing Officer initially rejected these claims, but the Tribunal later upheld the Assessee's position, allowing the deductions.
Issue 2: Double deduction on depreciation:
The Tribunal's decision to allow double deduction on depreciation was questioned in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Escorts India Ltd. Vs. UOI, emphasizing against permitting two deductions on the same expenditure without clear statutory indication.
Issue 3: Set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses:
The Tribunal's decision to restore the issue for allowing set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses was challenged, arguing that depreciation on capital assets should not be allowed when deduction for capital expenditure has already been claimed.
Issue 4: Adjustment of excess income application:
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider adjusting the excess amount of income application from the previous year in the current year. This direction was contested, citing the absence of specific provisions in Sections 11 to 13 of the Act for such adjustments.
Issue 5: Payment to Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board:
The Tribunal allowed the payment of 30% of market fees to the Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board as application of income for charitable purposes. However, it was argued that this payment was a statutory obligation and not a voluntary application of income.
The judgment dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decisions on the issues raised, emphasizing that adjustment against excess expenditure of an earlier year is considered application of income under Section 11 of the Act, in line with legal precedents like CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1222
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition of expenses u/s 143(3) for assessment year 2007-08.
Summary:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08, challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 7,97,491 made on account of disallowance of Pooja expenses, office expenses, and business development/seminar expenses.
2. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed 15% of the claimed expenses as the assessee did not provide complete details and evidence. However, the assessee later submitted complete details, including bills and vouchers, asserting that no defects were found in the books of account and supporting documents. The CIT(A) observed that the AO failed to demonstrate any defects in the expenses claimed by the assessee, leading to the conclusion that the ad hoc addition was unjustified. Consequently, the addition was deleted.
3. During the proceedings, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the AO's order, while the assessee sought an adjournment which was denied. No representation was made on behalf of the assessee during the hearing.
4. Upon reviewing the facts and submissions, the Tribunal found no merit in the departmental appeal. The AO did not provide any evidence to show which specific expenses lacked supporting bills or vouchers, nor did he specify the inadmissible nature of any expenditure. It was apparent that the AO had arbitrarily made a 15% ad hoc addition without proper justification. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was deemed appropriate.
5. Consequently, the departmental appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 9-07-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1221
Issues Involved:
1. Introduction and transfer of fake shares.
2. Failure to consolidate share transfer records at a single point.
3. Providing misleading and contradictory information to SEBI.
4. Violations of specific SEBI regulations.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Introduction and Transfer of Fake Shares
The judgment addresses the fraudulent introduction and transfer of 80,800 fake shares by the noticees to 22 promoter/front entities. The noticees retained specimen signature cards, verified signatures, and scrutinized share certificates, thus bypassing the Registrar and Share Transfer Agent (RTA). They forged signatures on transfer documents and dematerialized the fake shares. When genuine shareholders requested dematerialization, Parsoli rejected their requests, citing that duplicate shares had already been issued. Parsoli compensated these shareholders by off-market transfers from promoter/front entities. The judgment confirms that the shares transferred to promoter/front entities were fake, introduced and approved by the noticees, thereby violating regulations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1), and 4(2)(h) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (PFUTP Regulations).
Issue 2: Failure to Consolidate Share Transfer Records
The noticees failed to ensure all matters related to the transfer of securities were handled at a single point. They retained specimen signature cards despite the RTA's request, claiming they were in a torn state, which was disproven by SEBI officials. This failure enabled the fraudulent transfer of shares, violating regulation 53A of the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996, and SEBI Circular No. D&C:C/FITTC/Cir-15/2002 dated 27 December 2002.
Issue 3: Providing Misleading and Contradictory Information to SEBI
The noticees provided misleading and contradictory information during the investigation. Examples include inconsistent reasons for rejecting demat requests, contradictory statements about off-market transactions, and false claims about the condition of specimen signature cards. They also failed to provide critical information, such as details of rejected transfer/demat requests, share transfer processes, and off-market transactions by promoters. This non-cooperation hindered SEBI's investigation, violating sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Issue 4: Violations of Specific SEBI Regulations
The judgment finds that the noticees violated several SEBI regulations:
- By not providing information and giving misleading information, they violated sections 11C(2) and 11C(3) of the SEBI Act, 1992.
- By not handling share transfer work at a single point, they violated regulation 53A of the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996, and SEBI Circular No. D&C:C/FITTC/Cir-15/2002.
- By engaging in fraudulent activities related to fake shares, they violated regulations 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 4(1), and 4(2)(h) of the PFUTP Regulations.
Conclusion and Orders:
The judgment concludes that the introduction of fake shares and fraudulent transfers by a listed company and its promoters severely damage the integrity of the securities market. The noticees are restrained from buying, selling, or dealing in securities for seven years and are barred from holding director positions in any listed company for the same period. They are also directed to make a public offer to acquire shares from public shareholders and facilitate the delisting of Parsoli Corporation Ltd. if public shareholding falls below the minimum level. The order is to be enforced immediately, with copies served to all relevant stock exchanges and depositories.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1220
Issues Involved:
1. Whether in a simple money suit, a Court can restrain the Defendant from transferring or alienating his property during the pendency of the suit.
2. Whether in the absence of averments made in terms of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code, a Court can grant an order in the form of attachment before judgment or direct the Defendant to furnish security.
Summary:
Issue 1: Restraining the Defendant from Transferring Property in a Simple Money Suit
The Court examined whether it could restrain the Defendant from transferring or alienating his property during the pendency of a simple money suit. The Court referred to Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code, which allows temporary injunctions if the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated. However, the Court found that the plant and machinery in question were not the "property in dispute in the suit" as the subject matter was the recovery of money. Therefore, Clauses (a) and (c) of Order 39 Rule 1 did not apply, and Clause (b) could only apply if there was an intention to defraud creditors, which was not alleged in this case. Consequently, Order 39 Rule 1 was deemed inapplicable.
Issue 2: Attachment Before Judgment and Furnishing Security
The Court also considered whether it could grant an order in the form of attachment before judgment or direct the Defendant to furnish security in the absence of specific averments under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Raman Tech & Process Eng. Co. v. Solanki Traders, which emphasized that the power under Order 38 Rule 5 is extraordinary and should not be exercised mechanically. The Plaintiff must show that the Defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with the intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree. The Court found that the Plaintiff's allegations were vague and did not meet the requirements of Order 38 Rule 5. Therefore, the Court concluded that no order of attachment before judgment or direction to furnish security could be passed.
Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeal preferred by the Defendant, dismissed the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff, and dismissed the application for injunction filed by the Plaintiff. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to make out a case for attachment before judgment or for an injunction as prayed for. There was no order as to costs.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1219
Issues Involved:
1. Compensation for land acquisition.
2. Compliance with legal obligations.
3. Discrepancy between development and human rights.
4. Role of the State and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).
5. Establishment of a Claims Commission.
Summary:
1. Compensation for Land Acquisition:
The case involves Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., challenging the Orissa High Court's order directing the Central Government and the petitioner to determine and pay compensation to landowners u/s 13(5) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The lands were acquired in 1987, but compensation was never paid, leading the landowners to seek redress in the High Court.
2. Compliance with Legal Obligations:
The Supreme Court noted that despite the acquisition notifications u/s 4(1), 7(1), and 9 of the Act, the landowners were not compensated for over two decades. The coal company argued that the lands were not required for mining and proposed de-notification, which the Central Government rejected. The Court found this stance to be adding "insult to injury" and emphasized the need for compliance with legal obligations.
3. Discrepancy between Development and Human Rights:
The judgment reflects on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's concerns about the contradictions in India's democratic Constitution, highlighting the disparity between economic development and the rights of marginalized citizens. The Court acknowledged that development often leads to dispossession and trauma for those whose livelihoods are tied to the land, exacerbating social tensions and insurgency.
4. Role of the State and Public-Private Partnerships (PPP):
The Court discussed the role of PPPs in development, noting that while companies are willing to invest and provide amenities, the human factor and the need for relocation complicate the process. The judgment underscores the importance of balancing development with the rights and welfare of affected populations.
5. Establishment of a Claims Commission:
To resolve the issue, the Solicitor General proposed a scheme, agreed upon by the Central Government and the coal company, to establish a Claims Commission. The Commission, chaired by a former High Court Judge and including representatives from the Central Government and Coal India Ltd., will survey the land, determine compensation, and address de-notification where necessary. The Supreme Court approved the scheme with modifications, directing the Commission to submit its report to the Court for approval and further directions.
The Court expressed appreciation for the Solicitor General's efforts and emphasized the need for continued oversight to ensure justice for the affected landowners.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1218
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal stating that the controversy was covered by a previous order and that the question raised was a pure question of fact, not a question of law. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
........
|
9911796707
