Court : Delhi
Reported in : IV(2008)BC627; [2008]114CompCas113(Delhi); (2008)4CompLJ177(Del); 150(2008)DLT259; 2008(104)DRJ101; [2009]89SCL151(Delhi)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. A conflict of judicial view between the Bombay High Court and the Gujarat High Court in respect of the power of the company court Under Section 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) to stay criminal proceedings has given rise to the present appeal.2. The commercial relationship between the appellant and the respondent started with an Inter Corporate Deposit (ICD) of Rs. 2.50 crores being placed by the appellant with the respondent under two separate agreements dated 26.9.1997 and 03.10.1997 by way of two separate cheques of Rs. 1.25 lac each which were duly encashed. The said ICDs were for a period of 120 days and the respondent company were liable to repay the same before the expiry of the said period along with interest @25.5% per annum. In case of default, the rate of interest was to be enhanced by an additional interest of 11% per annum. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent failed to re-pay the ICD with i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6704 OF 201.(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.23898 OF 2011.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL ... RESPONDENT ORDER 1. Application for impleadment is allowed.2. Delay condoned.3. Leave granted.4. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition(C) No.44 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the order of assessment passed by the Assistant CIT, Circle-I, Siliguri under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') dated 11.12.2009, whereby the assessing authority has confirmed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997, respectively.5. The facts in brief are: The assessee is a Sikkim based non-Sikkimese who had filed his first return of income for Assessment Yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. ITA No. 163/Asr./2003 (assessment year 1998-99) is an appeal by the assessee - Tejinder Singh (HUF). It arises out of the assessment made on it under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act by order dated 27.3.2001. In this assessment order, an addition of Rs. 16,80,475/- was made under Section 168 of the Act. The amount represented sale proceeds of jewellery which had earlier been disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme, 1997. The jewellery was shown to have been sold to M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar, a firm of jewellers located in Delhi. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the sale and held that the assessee has adopted a device to introduce his own unaccounted income into the regular books. The addition was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and the assessee has come in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble President took into account the recommendation of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2006 and also the fact that the matter was of public importa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR258; (2008)220CTR(Bom)649; [2009]311ITR46(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan and A.V. Nirgude, JJ.1. Mr. Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner broadly made the following four propositions:I. Assuming the validity of the 2008 amendments and further assuming that the transaction is chargeable to tax then nevertheless it is submitted that the Show Cause Notice is without jurisdiction as both before and after 2008 amendment the Petitioner is not deemed to be an assessee in default.II. The provisions of Section 195 have no extra territorial application. In an offshore transaction involving two non residents in respect of a capital asset (i.e. share capital) and payment outside the country, even assuming that such transaction is chargeable to tax, there is no obligation to withhold tax under Section 195.III. The 2008 amendment to the extent that they purport to be retrospective are unconstitutional. Under the unamended Sections 191 and 201 the Show Cause Notice is clearly without jurisdiction.IV. In any view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)217CTR(SC)1; 2008(120)ECC141; 2008(156)LC141(SC); 2008(226)ELT679(SC); JT2008(6)SC451; 2008(8)SCALE290; (2008)8SCC413; (2008)3SCC(Cri)507.
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court whereby the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Case No. 538 of 2005 and Criminal O.P. No. 21636 of 2005 filed by the appellant herein.3. Following facts will highlight the controversy involved.4. One Dr.S. Balakrishnan, purchased the Toyota Lexus Car which was sent by Ship to Madras Port in July, 1994. His son Yogesh Balakrishnan presented certain documents for getting clearance of the said car from the Customs Department. One such document was a letter dated 8.9.1994 authored by the appellant herein Shri M. Natarajan who is the publisher of a magazine called 'Tamilarasi' which publication had commenced in the year 1992. He is also the author of bi-monthly magazine 'Pudiya Paarvai' which surfaced in the year 1993. One Baskaran was said to be assisting the appellant being the incharge of these publications. The said letter dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
In this appeal filed by the assessee, the short question which arises for consideration is whether, under Rule 15(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, they are liable to be penalized on the facts of this case. The appellant has a manufacturing unit (Unit-I) at Isnapur and a service providing unit (Unit-II) at Bhadrachalam. During the period from April 2007 to April 2008, Unit-I took CENVAT credit on certain input services totaling to Rs.4,98,899/- though it was not eligible to do so. This credit was, in fact, meant for Unit-II (provider of output service). The irregular availment of CENVAT credit by Unit-I was noticed by the Department in October 2008, whereupon the credit was reversed forthwith on 16/10/2008. Later on, interest was paid on 01/02/2010. Meanwhile, show-cause notice dt. 21/04/2009 was issued by the Department requiring the appellant (Unit-I) to show-cause as to why (a) an amount of Rs.4,98,899/- being CENVAT credit irregularly taken on invoices pertaining to other unit s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. GeorgeParacken, M(J) 1. The Applicant in this Original Application is aggrieved by the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against him which culminated in his removal from service with effect from 02.02.2010. 2.The brief facts of the case are that vide Memorandum dated 20.04.2009, Shri P.K. Jain, Sr. Commercial Manager(DB), the Competent Authority proposed to hold enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Article of Charge framed against him was as under:- œA preventive check was conducted by vigilance on 14/01/2008 in the office of the CCM/IT, NR, IRCA New Delhi. During the vigilance check Sh. Y.P. Singh, ERS/CO/PRS, IRCA, NDLS was found responsible for under noted lapses- He was held responsible for misusing of his privilege pass no.048217 dated 10.10.2007 as secured the reservation twice on 18.11.07 and 4.01.08 on the strength of same privilege pass number 0482 vide PNR No.244-4069056 and 250-7535718 once in f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:11. 9.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.851 of 2009 N.Meenakshi .. Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle III121 Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai 600 034. .. Respondent PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorari as stated herein. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramachandran, Sr.Counsel for Dr.Anita Sumanth For Respondent : Mr.Patti B.Jaganathan SCGSC ORDER The writ petition is directed against the assessment order of the respondent dated 31.12.2008 by which the respondent, having referred the matter to the Valuation Cell on 17.12.2008 as per Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ".the Act".), completed the assessment by invoking Section 50C of the Act by taking the value of land as determined for stamp duty purpose as the sale value, as no valuation report was received from the Valuation Cell till the said date. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Admit.2. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the ITAT on 27th February, 2009 pertaining to assessment years 2003-04. By the order of the Tribunal, proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been set aside.3. The Revenue has formulated the following questions of law in an appeal under Section 260A:a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, without discussing the facts of the case and the clauses of the agreement between NHAI and the assessee ?b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in ignoring relevant facts and findings in the order under appeal ?c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in allowing the deduction Under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [2009]308ITR69(Delhi); [2009]178TAXMAN311(Delhi)
C.M. No. 4222/2008 (condonation of delay) in I. T. A. No. 366/20081. For the reasons stated in the application and on submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, this application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay is condoned. This application stands disposed of.I.T.A. No. 366/20082. This appeal pertains to the block assessment period April 1, 1989, to January 15, 2000, and is directed against the order dated January 5, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The issue involved before the Tribunal was whether surcharge could be levied in the case of a search carried out prior to June 1, 2002. The Tribunal took the view that the proviso inserted to Section 113 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act of 2002, with effect from June 1, 2002, was prospective and that surcharge could only be levied in respect of searches conducted after June 1, 2002. The search in the present case was conducted on November 25, 1999.4. The second point on which ...
Tag this Judgment!