Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1091; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)506; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1026(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)228; 2001CriLJ1451; JT2001(3)SC329; 2001(2)SCALE270; (2001)9SCC59
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties.3. This Appeal is against a Judgement dated 8th June, 2000 by which the Criminal Appeal filed by the Appellants has been dismissed.4. Briefly stated that facts are as follows:5. On the basis of a report a complaint for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC was lodged against the Appellants. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against the Appellants. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. The 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore held the trial and convicted the 1st Appellant for offences punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to a rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Appellants 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against the said conviction the Appellants had preferred an Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(SC)291; [2001]248ITR216(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.The legality of circular dated 8th March, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the `impugned circular') issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) prescribing fresh guidelines regarding the applicability of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') to the extent it relates to transport contracts, i.e., contracts for carriage of goods, is in issue in this appeal. The said circular, inter alia, states that the provisions of section 194C shall apply to all types of contracts for carrying out any work including transport contracts. section 194C provides for deduction of tax at source from payments to contractors and sub-contractors. Section 194C was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 1972 with effect from 1-4-1972. Various amendments have been made in that section since then but material part relevant for the present purposes reads as under:'Payments to contractors and sub-contractors.194C.(1) Any person responsible for pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1080; JT2001(3)SC256; 2001(2)SCALE272; (2001)9SCC35; [2001]2SCR198
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. The legality of circular dated 8th March, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned circular') issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) prescribing fresh guidelines regarding the applicability of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act') to the extent it relates to transport contracts, i.e., contracts for carriage of goods, is in issue in this appeal. The said circular, inter alia, states that the provisions of Section 194C shall apply to all types of contracts for carrying out any work including transport contracts. Section 194C provides for deduction of tax at source from payments to contractors and sub-contractors. Section 194C was brought into existence by the Finance Act, 1972 with effect from April 1, 1972. Various amendments have been made in that section since then but material part relevant for the present purposes reads as under :'Payments to contractors and sub-contractors. 194C. (1) Any person responsible for paying...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1092; RLW2001(2)SC190; 2001(2)SCALE286; (2001)3SCC414; 2001(2)LC976(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. A General Court Martial (GCM) under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 was initiated against the respondent herein for certain allegations of defrauding the Border Road Organisation ('the Organisation') in which the respondent was working as a Superintendent, Buildings & Roads, Grade-II. On the conclusion of the said GCM proceedings, he was found guilty of some of the charges framed against him and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year which sentence under the Army Act was subject to confirmation by the higher authorities under Chapter XII of the Army Act. Pursuant to the said sentence, the respondent was taken into custody on the very day i.e. 28th July, 1976. When the conviction and sentence was taken up by the confirming authority, same was remanded back to the GCM for reconsideration. On remand, the GCM again heard the respondent's counsel and modified its earlier order whereby while finding the respondent again guilty reduced the earlier sentence of R.I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC483
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. The complainant is the appellant in this Court assailing the order of the High Court in revision setting aside the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on the basis of a complaint. It transpires that in respect of the incident in question an F.I.R. was lodged on 15th of September, 1995 making out an offence under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police on investigation into the offence, filed the final form which was accepted by order dated 27-1-1996. On 19-4-1996 a Protest Petition is alleged to have been filed and on that petition the Magistrate by order dated 7-1-1998 directed that the same be treated as a complaint. The Magistrate then held an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and ultimately, on the basis of the materials produced in the inquiry, taking the same with the allegations made in the Protest Petition which has already been treated as a complaint, took cognizance under Sections 279 and 338...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1084; 2001(2)ALLMR(SC)229; I(2001)DMC440SC; JT2001(3)SC356; (2001)3MLJ33(SC); 2001MPLJ556(SC); RLW2001(2)SC194; 2001(2)SCALE277; (2001)4SCC181; [2001]2SCR207; 2001
ORDERMarriage between the petitioners Jayalakshmi and Oswald is hereby dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent. No order as to costs.' 8. The respondent, namely, the husband, after passing of the consent decree, as indicated above, moved an application dated June 30, 1992 stating therein that decree by mutual consent was granted to the parties on 7th March, 1992 but the order remained silent on other reliefs which were mentioned in the agreement and in paragraph 8 of the petition relating to transfer of Flat No.11, Mon-Bijou Co-operative Housing Society, 60-D, Chimbai Road, Bombay. According to the agreement dated 26.7.91, the flat was to be transferred in the name of the husband on payment of Rs.1,70,000/- to the wife. But the said prayer was not made for the reason as indicated below in paragraph 3 of the petition for modification of decree:-'I say that though all these averments and facts were put on record, in the petition, both the Petitioners being lay persons, and appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(SC)509
ORDERBy the CourtIt is unnecessary to go into great detail in these matters for there is a statement in the order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus:'We will straightway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income Tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.'That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is assessment order that counts. That order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of setting out his case. We, therefore, do not agree with the Tribunal and the High Court that it was not necessary to set aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.2. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus :' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1390; (2001)166CTR(SC)504; [2001]248ITR449(SC)
ORDER1. The High Court of Kerala (see : [1998]229ITR801(Ker) was called upon to consider at the behest of the Revenue the following two questions (page 802) : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is to be assessed on the gross amount of interest received by him on his fixed deposit or on the interest received as reduced by the amount of interest paid on the loan taken on the security of such deposit 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding, (i) the act of making deposit and the act of borrowing on such deposit cannot be viewed as representing two different transactions (ii) there is thus a nexus between the deposit and the borrowing (iii) the principle of mutual dealings could be inferred ?' 2. It answered the questions in favour of the assessee. The Revenue is in appeal by special leave. 3. To take the facts of one of the two appeals before us as illustrative, the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]248ITR451(SC)
ORDERThe High Court (see CIT v. Road master Industries of India (P) Ltd. (P&H;), declined to call for a reference at the instance of the revenue of three questions. It did so in regard to the second question, with which alone we are now concerned, having regard to the statement on behalf of the revenue made before us, on the ground that it was already covered by a judgment of that High Court in respect of the same assessee (CIT v. Road master Industries of India (P) Ltd. , but for an earlier assessment year. The second question, with which we are concerned, reads thus (page 69) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on expenses on sea freight of Rs. 12,65,266 and insurance charges of Rs. 1,46,109 incurred by the assessee whether in India or outside?'The question plainly relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(SC)567; [2001]248ITR451(SC)
S.P. Bharucha,; N. Santosh Hegde and; Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.The High Court (see 1996 PNH 180), declined to call for a reference at the instance of the Revenue of three questions. It did so in regard to the second question, with which alone we are now concerned, having regard to the statement on behalf of the Revenue made before us, on the ground that it was already covered by a judgment of that High Court in respect of the same assessee (CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India P. Ltd. 1993 PNH 82), but for an earlier assessment year. The second question, with which we are concerned, reads thus (page 69)"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on expenses on sea freight of Rs. 12, 65, 266 and insurance charges of Rs. 1, 46, 109 incurred by the assessee whether in India or outside ?" *The question plainly relates to the correct interpretation...
Tag this Judgment!