Facts:

The case involved the Commissioner of Income Tax and M/S. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. It centered on the eligibility of deductions under Sections 80IB and 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to subsidies for various elements of cost related to the manufacture or sale of products.

Issues:

Whether subsidies for transport, interest, power, and insurance, being revenue receipts reimbursed to the assessee, had a direct nexus with the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or business.

Held:

The judgment in the Sterling Foods case established a significant test requiring a direct nexus between profits and gains and the industrial undertaking or business. In applying this test to the present case, it was held that all four subsidies were revenue receipts with a direct nexus to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking.( Para 1-17)

The immediate source of the subsidies being the government did not diminish the directness of the nexus. The subsidies aimed to reimburse costs incurred by the assessee in manufacturing and selling its products, contributing to the net profit derived from the business.( Para 18)

The argument that subsidies reimbursed on incurring costs related to a business fall under the head "income from other sources" was rejected. Section 28(iii)(b) clarified that income from cash assistance against exports is chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession," encompassing subsidies related to the reimbursement of production costs.( Para 28)

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the eligibility of subsidies for transport, interest, power, and insurance under Sections 80IB and 80IC.

Referred Cases:

Decided on : 09-03-2016

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 75

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 14, Section 2, Section 2(2), Section 260A, Section 28, Section 33B, Section 33B(4), Section 52, Section 52(1), Section 52(2), Section 56, Section 57, Section 80A, Section 80AB, Section 80E, Section 80HH, Section 80IA, Section 80IB, Section 80IB(1), Section 80IB(10), Section 80IB(11), Section 80IB(11A), Section 80IB(11B), Section 80IB(2), Section 80IB(3), Section 80IB(4), Section 80IB(5), Section 80IB(6), Section 80IB(7), Section 80IB(8), Section 80IB(9), Section 80IC, Section 80IC(2), Section 80IC(3), Section 80J

Deduction — Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture of Steel and Ferro Silicon. — Respondent submitted its return of income for the year 2004-2005 disclosing an income of Rs. 2,06,970/- after claiming deduction Under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act on the profits and gains of business of the Respondent's industrial undertaking. — Whether the profits and gains are derived from the business. — Refund of excise duty should not be excluded in arriving at the profit derived from business for the purpose of claiming deduction Under Section 80-IB of the Act.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., D.L. Chidananda, Sadhna Sandhu, Gargi Khanna, Arijit Prasad, Vikas Malhotra, Rupesh Kumar, Rashmi Malhotra, Guru Krishna Kumar, S.A. Haseen, B.V. Balaram Das and Anil Katiyar, Advocates, for the Appellant; S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., K.V. Mohan, K.V. Balakrishnan, Kavita Jha, Rajinder Mathur, Rani Chhabra, K. Sampath, R.P. Garg, V. Raj Kumar, Sunil Murarka, Kunal Chatterji and Maitrayee Banerjee, Advocates, for the Respondent

Cases Referred

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, (1980) 121 ITR 1 SC

Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II, (1978) 2 SCC 644

CIT Vs. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. 2000 242 ITR, 204

CIT Vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd., 317 ITR 353

CIT Vs. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Sterling Foods, Mangalore, (1999) 4 SCC 98

Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1975) 101 ITR 796SC

Jai Bhagwan Oil and Flour Mills Vs. Union of India, (2009) 14 SCC 63

K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (1982) 1 SCR 629

Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2009) 9 SCC 328

Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1975) 101 ITR 234SC

Merino Ply & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1994) 209 ITR 508

Pandian Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 262 ITR 278

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 7 SCC 764

Supriya Gill Vs. CIT, (2010) 193 Taxman 12 HP

Facts:

Pratibha Ramesh Patel filed a writ petition (Civil) No. 35 of 2016 under Article 32 challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012. The petitioner had also filed a similar writ petition before the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 with identical prayers.

Issues:

Whether filing a writ petition Under Article 32 after invoking a constitutional remedy before the High Court Under Article 226 on identical facts and reliefs constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that filing a writ petition Under Article 32 after invoking a constitutional remedy before the High Court Under Article 226 on identical facts and reliefs is an abuse of the process of the court. The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only), to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. Writ petition is dismissed

Facts:

The appellants sought the release of their land but faced rejection from the High Powered Committee, asserting that possession had already been taken and handed over to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

The High Court upheld the decision, contending that once land is acquired and possession taken, there is no scope for release under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The appellants disputed dispossession, claiming unclear information in the Committee's decision.

Issues:

Whether the possession of the land had been taken and handed over to HUDA.

Whether the appellants were dispossessed from their land.

The validity of the rejection of the request for release under Section 48.

Held:

The court found it difficult to accept the state's claim of possession based on unclear evidence. Symbolic possession, without legal possession, was deemed insufficient. The matter was remanded to the High Powered Committee for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the appellants should not be denied relief solely on the ground of Section 16. If the land is in Lal Dora, appellants are entitled to similar treatment as Millennium Industries Private Limited. The Committee was directed to make a decision within three months, with personal liability for costs if delayed. Interim orders maintaining possession status quo were to continue.

Referred Cases:

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Facts:

The case involves an appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2016) where the appellant, Anant Prakash Sinha, was facing charges in a case filed by his wife in Haryana. The wife filed an application under Section 216 of the CrPC during the trial, seeking the addition of a charge under Section 406 IPC against the husband.

Issues:

Whether the court has the authority to add or alter charges during a trial, specifically in response to an application filed by the informant-wife under Section 216 CrPC.

Held:

The court emphasizes that the trial court has the jurisdiction to add or alter charges if there is a defect or if something crucial has been omitted. The decision should be based on materials presented before the court or evidence that comes to light during the trial. The court underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial and preventing prejudice to the accused. In this case, the wife's application under Section 216 for framing an additional charge was allowed by the magistrate after considering the materials and being prima facie satisfied.

The court clarifies that if the court has not framed a charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add a charge or alter it.( Para 16)

The court reiterates that the charge framed by the magistrate should align with the materials produced before him or with subsequent evidence that comes to light. The court emphasizes the duty of the trial court to ensure no prejudice is caused to the accused.( Para 17)

The court affirms that the magistrate, in this case, did not err in allowing the application under Section 216. The order of the High Court, expressing disinclination to interfere with the magistrate's decision, is upheld.( Para 20)

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the court directs the magistrate to proceed with the trial, deciding the matter based on the evidence on record and without being influenced by any observations made, which are limited to testing the legal defensibility of the impugned order.

Referred Cases:

Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259

Amar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1974) 3 SCC 81

Bhimanna Vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 9 SCC 650

CBI Vs. Karimullah Osan Khan, (2014) 11 SCC 538

Fakhruddin Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 1326

Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 615

Harihar Chakravarty Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 266

Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347

Jasvinder Saini Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 7 SCC 256

Kantilal Chandulal Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 3 SCC 166

Rajbir alias Raju Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 15 SCC 116

Ramji Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 9 SCC 528

Sanichar Sahni Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 7 SCC 198

Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand, (1999) 7 SCC 467

State of A.P. Vs. Thakkidiram Reddy, (1998) 6 SCC 554

Thakur Shah Vs. King Emperor, (1942) 43 70 IA 196 : 1943 56 LW 706 : AIR 1943 PC 192

Topandas Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 33

Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591

Willie William Slaney Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116

Facts:

The case involves the interpretation of Notifications No. 14/02-CE and 15/02-CE, providing duty exemptions for knitted garment manufacturers.

The dispute centers on whether the benefit is applicable only when garments are made from duty-paid fabrics.

Assessees argue that Explanation II creates a legal fiction, deeming textile yarn or fabrics duty paid even without documentary proof.

Issues:

Interpretation of the conditions for full exemption under Notifications No. 14/02-CE and 15/02-CE.

Whether the benefit is available only when garments are made from duty-paid fabrics.

The significance of Explanation II in creating a legal fiction.

Held:

The Court holds that Explanation II creates a legal fiction, intending that no duty is required to be paid by manufacturers of knitted garments. The benefit of the exemption notification is available to the assessees. The court refers to the Budget Explanatory Notes, emphasizing that those not availing MODVAT facility were allowed to clear goods without paying excise duty. The court rejects reliance on a previous judgment (CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries) by the Tribunal, stating that Explanation II was added to overcome such interpretations. Condition No. 3, mentioning "read with any notification for the time being in force," was included to overcome previous interpretations. Appeals filed by the assessees are allowed, and those by the Revenue are dismissed.

Referred Cases:

CCE, Vadodara Vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries, (2002) 2 SCC 127

Union of India Vs. Jalyan Udyog, (1994) 1 SCC 318

Facts:

The case involves the State of Punjab and others as appellants and M/S. Shreyans Indus Ltd. and others as respondents. The judgment deals with the interpretation and application of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issues:

The limitation period prescribed for passing assessment orders, the Commissioner's authority to extend such time limits, and the distinction between "deferment" and "extension" in the context of assessment proceedings.

Held:

The judgment clarifies that assessment orders under the Punjab Act are generally to be passed within three years. The Commissioner, under Section 11(10), is empowered to extend this period, subject to recording reasons justifying the extension. The judgment emphasizes the similarity in purpose between the Punjab Act and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, despite differences in terminology.( Paragraph 9 )

Highlight that the extension of time for assessment enlarges the period of limitation. Once the original limitation period expires, the right to make an assessment is extinguished, providing the assessee with immunity against further assessment. A valuable right accrues in favor of the assessee when the limitation period expires.( Paragraphs 20 and 21 )

Emphasizes that, in the context of the Punjab Act, there is no scope for extending the time for assessment when the assessment has already become time-barred.( Paragraph 24)

Decision: The appeals are dismissed, affirming the principles outlined in the analysis.

Referred Cases:

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes INT-I, South Zone, Bangalore, (2006) 143 STC 10

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jullundur Vs. Ajanta Electricals, (1995) 4 SCC 182

D.V. Paul Vs. Manisha Lalwani, (2010) 8 SCC 546

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. Vs. C. Rajasekhar Rao, (1987) 4 SCC 93

Javer Jivan Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax Appeal, (1998) 111 STC 199

Facts:

Power Grid Corporation of India constructed a 400 KV Barh-Balia double circuit transmission line.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. is one of the beneficiaries.

Dispute arose regarding the COD of the transmission line.

Issues:

Whether a new transmission line, charged from one end but lacking switchgear at the other end, could be commissioned for raising transmission charges.

Interpretation of Regulation 3(12) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009.

Held:

The Court agrees with the Tribunal that COD of transmission lines requires successful charging, trial operation, and being in regular service.

The definition of "transmission lines" includes switchgear and other works.

The delay in installing switchgear at one end was not the fault of the appellant, but beneficiaries cannot be made liable for this delay.

The appeals are dismissed without prejudice to the appellant's right, if any, against NTPC.

Facts:

The case involved the conviction of appellants Ram Laxman and Sanjay alias Sanju for offenses under Section 302/149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court maintained the conviction of the appellants while acquitting co-accused based on the testimony of the informant Ganesh, the brother of the deceased.

Issues:

The witness Ganesh's testimony, as the High Court acquitted some co-accused while maintaining the conviction of the appellants.

Held:

The Division Bench, after considering the entire record, found that the High Court had committed a serious error in relying on the principle that "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" and granting acquittal to some co-accused while maintaining the conviction of the appellants. The court emphasized that if a witness is found unreliable, the evidence cannot be selectively split. The Division Bench concluded that the evidence of the only eyewitness, Ganesh, was highly unreliable, and the specific injuries attributed by him could not carry any weight. The appellants were granted acquittal, claiming parity with the co-accused who had been acquitted earlier. The appeals are allowed.

Referred Cases:

Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) SCC Cri 46

Ugar Ahir Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277

Facts:

The Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an award against the Respondent for non-payment of dues to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI).

Auction sale conducted for the recovery of the awarded amount.

The auction was held, and the Appellant emerged as the sole bidder.

Issues:

Non-compliance with Rules 285B and 285C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952.

Violations of principles conducting the auction, including issues with the deposit of the bid amount.

Held:

The Board of Revenue set aside the auction sale, citing non-compliance with specified rules and violations in the auction procedure.

The High Court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision.

The Supreme Court held that the auction procedure was not duly followed, including issues with the estimation of property value and notice to the Respondent.

The auction sale was declared invalid due to procedural lapses.

Referred Cases:

Manilal Mohanlal shah Vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mohmad, AIR 1954 SC 349

M/s. Progressive Industrial Enterprises Vs. Bank of Baroda, A.I.R. 1989 M.P. 177

Ram Kishun Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 11 SCC 511

Ram Swaroop Vs. Board of Revenue, (1999) RD 291

Rao Mahmook Ahmad Khan through their L.R. Vs. Ranbir Singh, (1995) Sup 4 SCC 275

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited, (2002) 12 SCC 596