In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Videocon Industries Ltd. v. Union of India this Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the present challenge to the impugned Award by way of a petition under Section 34 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the preliminary objection of the Respondent to the maintainability of the present petition under Section 34 of the Act requires to be upheld. This will not preclude, of course, the Petitioner from seeking other appropriate remedies that may be available in accordance with law.
A confession of the co-accused is admissible only under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. One of the essential requirements of the said provision is that the two accused should be tried jointly. Since the confession of the co-accused is not admissible as he is not being jointly tried with the Petitioner and besides this piece of evidence there is no other evidence, no charge can be framed against the Petitioner for offence under Section 135A of the Customs Act.
As is clear from the arguments of Mr. Bhushan, whole attempt was to say that divulgence of ACR is in public interest. That is precisely the CIC is asked to find out. The matter is still at large and the appellant can always argue this before the CIC. What is important is that the procedure under Section 11(1), which is mandatory has to be followed which includes, giving of notice to the concerned officer information whose ACR is sought for.
Whether when notice u/s 148 is issued, Revenue is not required to verify the change in address of the assessee – Whether when assessee is aware of the fact that a notice has been issued but wrongly dispatched to his old address, the same is to be treated as deemed served – Whether the requirement u/s 149 is to ‘issue notice’ and not ‘service of notice’ as mandated u/s 34 of I-T Act, 1922.
Whether the income of the assessee being a Trust can be computed on commercial principles and while doing so whether depreciation on fixed assets can be allowed. On this issue, there seems to be a consensus of judicial thinking, having regard to the consensus of judicial opinion, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. There does not appear to be any contrary view plausible on the question raised before us and at any rate no judgment taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice.
Income Tax department cannot dictate Assessee whether or not to incur expenditure. Arm’s length price of royalty expenditure not to be linked with profit/income resulting therefrom. Losses are not a valid ground to disallow royalty expenditure. CIT VS. EKL APPLIANCES LTD (Delhi HC)
Delhi High Court has recently in a batch of appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd and their employee directors held, inter alia, that the assignment of the Keyman insurance policies taken by the Company in respect of the Directors, at the surrender value fixed by the insurer did not give rise to a taxable benefit in the hands of the Directors. Hence the difference between the premium paid by the Company and the surrender value was not taxable in the hands of the Directors.
The term ‘slump sale’ has been defined to mean a transfer of a business undertaking or a business for a lumpsum consideration with all its assets and liabilities, without values being assigned to individual assets/liabilities. The said term has no other significance and we should not read into and understand that the word ‘sale’, used in the term ‘slump sale’, as a cause/reason to give a restrictive meaning to slump sale, i.e. it can only apply to sales in a narrow sense and not to transfers under Section 2(47).
Briefly stating the facts are that Hemant Gandhi was acting as a middleman for accused Dr. A.K. Srivastava and Lallan Ojha, who were respectively posted as Commissioner and Superintendent of Central Excise at the relevant time. The allegations are that they were involved in obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means from the businessmen. Further the allegations are that they had conspired to conduct an unauthorized raid at the business premises of Dalip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal.
ROS has also gone into disputes with regard to registration of members and the list of voters of the petitioner society. This aspect was also clearly beyond his jurisdiction. A dispute with regard to the membership, and the right of a particular member to vote at the elections is a dispute which arises between a society and its members. Such a dispute cannot be resolved by the Registrar. This is clearly beyond his jurisdiction.
