Wish You and Your family a Happy and Prosperous New Year all best wishes with regards Yours Advocatemmmohan
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8498 OF 2013 C.I.T. & ANR. APPELLANT(s) VERSUS M/S YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. RESPONDENT(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8496/2013, 8497/2013, 8502/2013, 8508/2013, 8511/2013, 8512/2013, 8514/2013, 8516/2013, 8517/2013, 8520/2013, 8925/2013, 8926/2013, 8928/2013, 8788/2012, 8790/2012, 8534/2013, 8563/2013, 8564/2013, 8923/2013, 8924/2013, 8930/2013, 8931/2013, 8232/2015, 9253/2015, CIVIL… Read More (i) Whether Section 10A of the Act is beyond the purview of the computation mechanism of total income as defined under the Act. Consequently, is the income of a Section 10A unit required to be excluded before arriving at the gross total income of the assessee? (ii) Whether the phrase “total income” in Section 10A of the Act is akin and pari materia with the said expression as appearing in Section 2(45) of the Act? (iii) Whether even after the amendment made with effect from 1.04.2001, Section 10A of the Act continues to remain an exemption section and not a deduction section? (iv) Whether losses of other 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of 10A Units before deductions under Section 10A are effected? (v) Whether brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of 10A Units or non 10A Units can be set off against the profits of another 10A Units of the assessee.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5360-5363 OF 2013 AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(s) VERSUS GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT(s) WITH C.A. No. 5364/2013, C.A. No. 5365/2013, C.A. Nos. 6385-6387/2013, C.A. Nos. 6737-6738/2013, C.A. No. 6739/2013, C.A. Nos. 6836-6926/2013, C.A. Nos. 7865-7894/2013, C.A. No. 8114/2013, C.A. No. 8115/2013,… Read More levy of property tax on “mobile towers =The first are the appeals arising from the judgment and order dated 24/25.04.2013 passed by the Gujarat High Court declaring Section 145A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Gujarat Act”) as ultra vires the Constitution and on that basis interdicting the levy of property tax on “mobile towers”. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, however, took the view that the Cabin in a mobile tower in which BTS system, details of which are noticed below, is located, would be a building and, therefore, exigible to tax under the Gujarat Act. The State Government and the different Municipal Corporations have challenged the first part of the order of the High Court whereas the Cellular operators have challenged the later part.=Though several other decisions of this Court and also of different High Courts have been placed before us we do not consider it necessary to refer to or to enter into any discussion of the propositions laid down in the said decisions as the views expressed in all the aforesaid cases pertain to the meaning of the expressions ‘land’ and ‘building’ as appearing in the definition clause of the statutes in question. We, therefore, set aside the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court and answer the appeals arising from the order of the Bombay High Court; transferred cases and the writ petitions accordingly. However, we leave it open, so far as the cellular operators in the Bombay cases are concerned, to agitate the issue with regard to the retrospective operation of the assessment/demand of tax and the quantum thereof before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Consequently, and in the light of the above all the appeals, writ petitions and the transferred cases are disposed of.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.906/2016 Vivek Narayan Sharma …Petitioner(s) Vs. Union of India Respondent(s) WITH W.P.(C) Nos.908/2016,913/2016,916/2016, WP© D.No.37946/2016, W.P.(C) No.929/2016, W.P.(C)No.930/2016, 943/2016,W.P.(Crl.) No.162/2016, W.P.(C) No.951/2016,952/2016,953/2016,954/2016,958/2016,957/2016,T.P.(C)No.2018- 2022/2016,W.P.(C)No.971/2016,972/2016, SLP© No.35356/2016, T.P.(C)No.2030- 2038/2016, W.P.(C)No.978/2016, W.P.(C)D.No.40114/2016,W.P.(C) No.944/2016, SLP©No.35805/2016,W.P.(C)No.996/2016,997/2016, T.P.(C)No.1958-1967/2016 & T.P.(C)No.1982-1996/2016, W.P.(C) Nos. 1006/2016, 1008/2016, 1009/2016, 1010/2016, 1011/2016 and… Read More Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14,19 and 21; Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect?
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12237-12238_OF 2016 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30884-30885 OF 2015] STATE BANK OF INDIA … APPELLANT VERSUS SANTOSH GUPTA AND ANR. ETC. …RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 12240-12246_OF 2016 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30815 & 30817 OF 2015] [SLP (CIVIL) NOS.30810-30817… Read More whether SARFAESI in its application to the State of Jammu & Kashmir would be held to be within the legislative competence of Parliament. – Having held that the provisions of SARFAESI cannot be applied to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, it is a contradiction in terms to state that SARFAESI can be availed of by banks which originate from the State of Jammu & Kashmir for securing monies which are due to them and which have been advanced to borrowers who are not the residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. 48. We therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court. As a result, notices issued by banks in terms of Section 13 and other coercive methods taken under the said Section are valid and can be proceeded with further. The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 10706 OF 2014 LALITA RAMESH LASE & ORS. ….PETITIONERS VERSUS JAIRAJ KANTILAL SONAWALA & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS WITH SLP(C) No. 24080/2014 SLP(C) No. 22322/2015 SLP(C) No. 23092/2014 SLP(C) No. 28382/2014 SLP(C) No. 18491/2014 SLP(C) No. 594/2015 SLP(C) No. 28380/2014 SLP(C) No. 22327/2015 SLP(C)… Read More No Remand when there is no basic case to fill the gaps = the High Court noticed amongst others, that the applications filed were all in a cyclostyled form which did not adequately contain the particulars of the lands. That the amendment applications did not contain the required endorsements to indicate the dates on which those had been submitted and taken on record, was noted as well. It took noticed too, that by such amendment applications, an attempt had been made to enhance the duration of cultivating possession of the petitioner from 20-22 years to 40-50 years. It recorded the finding of the Tribunal that except the 7/12 extracts/mutation entries for the year 1982-83 showing the names of 25 persons as cultivators and some mutation entries in the names of the legal representatives of the corresponding original applicants, no other document had been produced. That all the applicants had not examined themselves was marked as well. The High Court recorded that on the basis of the materials available, the Tribunal had disbelieved the contents of the applications submitted in the cyclostyled forms. It noticed the observation of the Tribunal that the documents/records sought to be produced before it (Tribunal) had not been offered in the earlier rounds of enquiry and that too without any explanation. The conclusion of the Tribunal that though there were documents referring to agricultural lands with survey number thereof along with the particulars of the applicants as cultivators but the same were not relatable to the disputed lands was also taken in consideration. 10. The High Court thus, on a scrutiny of the available datas, disapproved the direction of the Tribunal, in spite of its above findings, to remand the matter to the concerned revenue authorities for a fresh round of audit of the rival assertions by allowing the parties to adduce fresh evidence. According to it, if notwithstanding the several arduous bauts of the parties, spanning over three decades, the factum of possession of the petitioners of the plots involved as on the Tiller’s Day, as agriculturists, could not be demonstrated by valid evidence, there was no justification for the remand, as ordered by the Tribunal. The revision petitions filed by the petitioners were therefore dismissed as a whole, decisively affirming for all intents and purposes, the findings of the first appellate authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane, negating the claim of the petitioners.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12182 OF 2016 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 25302 OF 2012) J. Ashoka …. Appellant(s) Versus University of Agricultural Sciences & Ors. …. Respondent(s) 1 2 J U D G M E N T R.K. Agrawal, J. 1) Leave… Read More Whenever the Board of Regents considers a person placed lower in merit in the list of selected candidates recommended by the Selection Committee, it can do so only by recording reasons as to why the case of the person placed above is being overlooked and the person below is considered the best for being appointed. In the present case, adequate reasons have been recorded by the Board, viz., her qualification, length of regular service as Assistant Professor and humanitarian grounds. The competence and merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he/she possesses but also taking into account the other necessary factors like career of the candidate, his educational curriculum, experience in the field, his general aptitude, personality of the candidate and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be held. 22) It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the present appellant is at present working on a regular post of Assistant Professor in some other University whereas Respondent No. 3 would be put to undue hardship if she would discontinue from the post. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the Board in selecting the third respondent is strictly in accordance with the relevant Statutes framed by the University and the Board had exercised its power judiciously by assigning cogent reasons as to why the third respondent was preferred.