Whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the 1988 Act’) and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) are the question which require consideration in this appeal.
The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the fact that there is no bar to purchase agricultural land on which house was to be constructed. The fact is that subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 54F, where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a HUF, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereinafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed,
CCIT Vs. Rajendra Singh (Patna High Court)- Even assuming that there were temporary breaks in course of interrogation which continued for 42 hours, it is not in dispute that even on the second night of search and survey on 10.9.2010, the interrogations continued till 3 A.M. and the respondent no.3 and his family members were made to remain awake when it was time for sleep.
ACIT Vs. Mrs. Rajpal Sethi (ITAT Mumbai) – AO in the case of assessee while making the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 has accepted the short term capital gain and the long term capital gain on sale of shares vide order dated 22.12.2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, we are of the view that the assessee’s case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Satpal Singh Sethi (supra). This being so and in the absence of any distinguishing features or contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal and the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforementioned cases, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in directing the AO to accept the appellant’s claim of short term capital gain and long term capital gain on share transactions, where the delivery has been taken or given and Security Transaction Tax has been paid.
Kushal K. Bangia Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- In principle, though the scope of ‘income’ in s. 2(24) is very wide, a capital receipt is not chargeable to tax as income unless there is a specific provision to that effect. As the residential flat owned by the assessee in the society’s building was a capital asset in his hands, the compensation was a capital receipt. The department’s argument that the cash compensation was a ‘share in profits earned by the developer’ is not acceptable because it proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of the payer determines the nature in the hands of the recipient. However, as the said receipt reduced the cost of acquisition of the new flat, it had to be taken into when computing the gains from a transfer thereof in the future
Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- As far as the data to be used by the TPO while determining the ALP was concerned, it is observed that it is covered by the provisions of rule 10D sub-rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules. Section 92 C provides that the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods being the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors for computing the ALP and also any other method as may be prescribed by the Board. S. 92D provides that (i) every person who has entered into an international transaction shall maintain and keep such information and documents in respect thereof;
It is a settled proposition in law that this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review as we are exercising now, is entitled to mould the relief according to the facts and circumstances and to deny relief even though finding any error in the action of which judicial review is sought. The powers of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 are wide. This Court, to do substantial justice between the parties,
Kwality Ice Cream Company And Anr Vs. UOI (Delhi HC)- Period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. If that be the position, the period of limitation prescribed for demand of duty under Section 11A is normally one year and, in exceptional circumstance of a case falling under the proviso to Section 11A(1), the period of limitation is five years.
State of Gujarat & Ors Vs Essar Oil Ltd. & Anr (Supreme Court) – This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 22.04.2008 in Special Civil Application No.24233/2007, whereby the Respondent No. 1 herein, Essar Oil Limited (hereinafter ‘Essar’) was given the benefit of Sales Tax incentive under the Government of Gujarat ‘Capital Investment Incentive to Premier/Prestigious Unit Scheme, 1995-2000’ (hereinafter ‘the said Scheme’).
DCIT Vs. R. R.Builders (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no dispute that the partners of the assessee firm are also partners of the firm M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai. We further find that the amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- each was withdrawn by Shri Rafique Shakur Shekhani and Shri Sayed Rasul Shaikh partners of the firm on 15.4.2005 from their partnership firm M/s M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai as per copy of cash book filed and the same amount was deposited by both the partners with the assessee firm on the same date.
