Withdrawn tax exemption cannot be reclaimed- An industry which has been granted tax exemption to set up unit in a backward region cannot claim the benefit even after it was withdrawn by the state, the SC stated in the case, State of Haryana vs Mahabir Vegetable Oils Ltd. In this case, the firm set up a solvent extraction plant and enjoyed the sales tax benefit till 1996. That year, the firm was put in the negative list as it was found to be a polluting industry. The benefit was withdrawn since then. This was challenged by the firm in the Punjab and Haryana high court. It allowed its petition and ruled that once the firm invested funds on the promise of tax benefit, the government could not withdraw the exemption mid-way. Reversing this view, the SC emphasised that there was no vested interest in the firm to get the benefit for all times. The government can change the rules in public interest. In this case, the decision to put the firm in the negative list was on account of the unit’s polluting nature, the SC said, allowing the appeal of the state government.
Permanent injunction against firm for violating copyright – The Delhi high court last week passed permanent injunction against a firm which violated the copyright and trade mark of Castrol Ltd in the field of oils and lubricants. The court further asked the guilty firm to pay “punitive damages” of Rs 10 lakh. This, explained the judgment of the high court, was “with a view to discourage and dishearten the law-breakers to indulge in such like violations with impunity.”
As per clause (zr) of section 65(105), service tax is leviable on any service provided to any person, by a cargo handling agency in relation to cargo handling service. The argument of the Appellant is that they could never understand that they were a cargo handling agency because they are in the business of warehousing of goods for which they were already paying service tax. This was a service provided by the contractors and the charges were recovered from the customers who use such services. But as a corporation owned by the Rajasthan State they did not want to enter into dispute on this issue with the Union of India and as soon as the issue was pointed out to them they started paying tax for the charges collected by them and paid to their contractor who was providing the service.
Compensation received under Non-Competition Agreement became taxable as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said Section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Lastly, in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) would be a revenue receipt. In the present case, both CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the agreement entered into by the assessee with Ranbaxy led to loss of source of business; that payment was received under the negative covenant and therefore the receipt of Rs. 50 lakhs by the assessee from Ranbaxy was in the nature of capital receipt. In fact, in order to put an end to the litigation, Parliament stepped in to specifically tax such receipts under non-competition agreement with effect from 1.4.2003.
Petitioner was an employee in the 1st respondent – Organization M/s. HMT Ltd. Petitioner availed of a voluntary retirement scheme as on 31.3.2003 that was mooted by the employer and as a result he received an amount of Rs. 6,01,270/-. The employer at the time of paying this amount deducted a sum of Rs. 29,331/- at source under the provisions of Section 192 of the Act and an acknowledgment in Form 16-A was also issued to the petitioner evidencing the deduction of this amount from the amount paid to him and remitted the same to the credit of the Income Tax Department.
Right to privacy has been a subject matter and reiterated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and another versus Canara Bank and others (2005) 1 SCC 496. However, the said right is not an absolute right. Right to information is a part of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act balances right to privacy and right to information. It recognizes that both rights are important and require protection and in case of conflict between the two rights, the test of over-riding public interest is applied to decide whether information should be withheld or disclosed.
(1) Euthanasia – Right to die – Legality – In 1973, petitioner, staff nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEM hospital), was sexually assaulted and choked, leaving her blind, deaf, paralysed and in a vegetative state – In 1999, ‘X’ as petitioner’s next friend filed a petition for euthanasia submitting that petitioner should be allowed to die with dignity as there was not the slightest possibility of any improvement in her condition – Whether petition filed by the ‘X’ regarding euthanasia for the petitioner could be allowed?
Service – Preparation of judgments through third party – Removal from service – Legality (i) Whether High Court was justified in dispensing with enquiry while passing order recommending appellant’s removal (ii) Whether order of removal passed by Governor was within his jurisdiction Constitution – Whether High Court could invoke Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution while passing recommendation for removal of subordinate judge.
The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases.
In the case of Synergies Casting Ltd. v. DCIT it was held that exemption under Section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is not available to an undertaking taken over on lease. Further, the Tribunal held that in order to get the benefit of Section 10B of the Act, for the unexpired period, the taxpayer must prove that it is a successor to the predecessor company. Since the taxpayer was only a lessee it was not a successor to the lessor.
