Petitioner had filed the application for registration on 23rd September, 2006 after the 2002, Scheme had come to an end, as the scheme was applicable only upto 31 st March, 2006. The industrial park set up by them was not operational/functional by 31st March, 2006. It became operational on a subsequent date. The completion certificate for the said park issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation is dated 29th August, 2007. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim notification under the 2002, Scheme.
The non-availability or non-association of independent witness cannot be a ground for discharge or acquittal in all cases. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses could not be undermined at the stage of framing of charges. It is moreso when the prosecution has cited some panch witnesses to be examined in support of its case. The impugned order discharging the accused/respondents apparently suffers from illegality and has caused miscarriage of justice. At the stage of charge, what is to be seen by the Trial Court was laid down by the Supreme Court in the catena of judgments. Reference is made to the judgment in case State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018.
There is no reason and justification to hold that clause (iii) of the Explanation intents to reduce or restrict the indexed cost of acquisition’ to the period during which the assessee has held the property and not the period during which the property was held by the previous owner.
CIT Vs. Jagat Novel Exhibitors Private Limited (Delhi HC)- Main contention of the Assessee was that the notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was not issued to the respondent company in the name of the principal officer but was issued to Jagat Novel Exhibitors and without the words “Private Limited” as a suffix. Therefore, the notice was vague as it could not be ascertained whether it was issued to an individual, a firm, an HUF, etc. The notice, therefore, was void ab initio and accordingly the assessment order was a nullity.
The crux of the controversy is whether the appellant which is a Company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 is entitled to have two kinds of memberships as aforesaid. The only difference in the rights of the two kinds of members is that while the Member Exporters have a right to elect and to be elected as office bearers of the appellant, the Registered Exporters have no such right.
The Synodical Board of Health Services Vs DGIT (Delhi HC)-It was held that the principle of res judicata does not apply and for each period the question of grant of exemption has to be examined separately. The competent authority in the said case had brought on record evidence to show that the records and accounts were not properly maintained and were obviously subjected to manipulation which was decipherable.
CIT vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd (Delhi High Court) – Lease rental in monetary terms is a sum total of the financing charge and the amount embedded in it in the form of the capital sum. What the assessee needs to do, while offering for tax income derived from lease is, to separate the financing charge from the amount recovered towards capital, that is, the capital recovery amount. The financing change is determined by applying the IRR to the net investment made in the asset.
Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Muljimal Gandhi ( Delhi HC)- that interest at the rate of 6% per annum under Rule 8 could have been awarded to the respondent on the seized Indian currency only. The learned Single Judge has however applying the said Rule also awarded interest on the seized foreign currency and which cannot be sustained. The Division Bench of this Court in Neeraj Kumar (supra) has held that a writ remedy cannot be availed to circumvent the non grant of interest by the authority, Commissioner, Central Excise in that case. It was also observed that in any event a writ petition for award of interest simplicitor was not maintainable in view of the availability of alternate remedy by way of appeal or by way of a suit. . Else the position is squarely covered by Suganmal and M/s Orient Enterprise (supra) and this writ petition in the nature of enforcement of a civil liability that is claim for interest in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention of money is not maintainable. It is not as if payment of interest under Rule 8 (ii) was mandatory (as under Rule 8(i)) and which could be enforced by way of a writ petition. The impugned judgment awarding interest under Rule 8(i) qua Indian currency also can thus not be sustained.
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. DCIT (Delhi HC)- We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
CIT Vs. Rajan Nanda (Delhi HC) -Every assessee has right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and to see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax.
