Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether ITAT was justified in holding that dividend income earned by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 21,35,766/- from a Company called Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD. Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of Assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act?
Uniflex Cables Ltd. versus C.C.E. (Supreme Court)- With regard to the imposition of penalty in the present case is concerned, the Commissioner, himself in his order-inoriginal has stated that the issue involved in the case is of interpretational nature. Keeping in mind the said factor, the Commissioner thought it fit not to impose harsh penalty and a penalty of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant while confirming the demand of the duty. Honorable Supreme Court held that as Commissioner himself found that it is only a case of interpretational nature, in our considered opinion, no penalty could be and is liable to be imposed on the appellant herein.
Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- In this case, a firm issued cheques to a person but it was returned by the bank as the account had been closed. The payee filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the firm and two partners. During the trial, the two partners produced the copy of the registration of the firm. It indicated that there were two more partners in the firm. So the payee wanted to make them also parties. The newcomers moved the Gujarat high court for quashing this move. The high court refused to do so. They appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court order and asked it to reconsider the case.
Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. & ANR. Vs. Mamlatdar & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) – Honourable SC held that We do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellants that imposition of penalty is in violation of the principles of natural justice. We find from the orders passed by the authorities that the appellants had given incorrect information with regard to total number of connections given by them. The requisite information was not provided by the appellants in spite of issuance of notices and requests made to the appellants.
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. M/s. Malik Traders (Supreme Court of India) – A person may have a right to withdraw his offer but if he has made his offer on a condition that some earnest money will be forfeited for not entering into contract or if some act is not performed, then even though he may have a right to withdraw his offer, he has no right to claim that the earnest/security be returned to him. Forfeiture of such earnest/security, in no way, affects any statutory right under the Indian Contract Act. Such earnest/security is given and taken to ensure that a contract comes into existence. It would be an anomalous situation that a person who, by his own conduct, precludes the coming into existence of the contract is then given advantage or benefit of his own wrong by not allowing forfeiture.
The judgment in the case, Sri Ramachandrappa vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co, stated that compensation to be awarded is not measured by the nature, location or degree of the injury, but rather by the extent or degree of the incapacity resulting from the injury. The tribunals are expected to make an award determining the amount which should appear to be just, fair and proper.
Supreme Court has recently held in the case of CCE, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Living Media India Pvt. Ltd. that if a prerecorded music cassette or a popular film or musical score is imported into India, duty will necessarily have to be charged on the value of the final product. As per Rule 9, in determining the transaction value there has to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, royalties and the license fees related to the imported goods that the buyer is required to pay, directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale of goods. Therefore, when prerecorded music cassette is imported as against the blank cassette, definitely its value goes up in the market which is in addition to its value and therefore duty shall have to be charged on the value of the final product. Therefore, there can be no dispute with regard to the fact that value of the royalty paid is to be included in the transaction value.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs Gurukripa Resins Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)- Central Excise- manufacture- Rosin and Turpentine- process of lifting water is incidental to manufacture; the operation of lifting of the water from the well to the higher levels, is so integrally connected with the manufacture of “Turpentine Oil” and “Rosin”, that without this activity it is impossible to manufacture the said goods and therefore, the processing of the said raw material in or in relation to manufacture of the said final goods is carried on with the aid of power.
CCE Versus RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. – Supreme Court – There was no mistake apparent on record when the CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent-assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by asessee should not have been engaged as a cost accountant. CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. In our opinion, the CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside.
C.C.E., Mangalore Vs M/s. Pals Micro systems Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- The department could not establish that there was any suppression of facts or a fraud on the part of the respondent- assessee. We find that the honest mistake committed in maintenance of stock register etc. was frankly admitted by the Managing Director of the respondent-assessee. There is no finding to the effect that there was a fraud or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Thus, it is very clear that the notice was issued after expiry of the period of limitation.
