Legal Reference Library

In ACIT v. M/s.Nokia Siemens Networks (P) Ltd, the Delhi ITAT held that assessee cannot be treated as Assessee-in-Default for Late payment of TDS due to system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end. In the instant case, assessee was held as assessee-in-default for delay in deposit of TDS. Assessee maintained that the amount of TDS was debited from the bank account of the assessee on the due date i.e. 7.10.2009 and the delay in deposit of such tax by a day was on account of system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end, which were beyond the control of the assessee. On appeal, the first appellate authority held in favour of assessee. However, it confirmed the levy of interest for late payment of TDS. Both the assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals against the order. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue contended that the first appellate authority erred in holding in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ogale Glass Work

The Delhi High Court, in the case of VK Bhatnagar vs Canara Bank and Anr, has directed the bank to compensate the petitioner for the trauma and humiliation caused due to wrongful attachment of his property because of the bank’s negligence arising due to mistaken identity. The petition was filed by VK Bhatnagar, whose property was wrongly attached by Canara Bank for default of payment by a debtor of the same name. The petitioner faced extreme humiliation since not only was the warrant of attachment affixed to his property, but loudspeakers too proclaimed the same. The petitioner then filed objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, stating that he had undertaken no financial transactions with Canara Bank and also disclosing his parentage. He also showed that he was a resident of Delhi where as the debtor is a resident of Lucknow. However, no reply was offered by Canara Bank in response to the objections filed. Harassed, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the ban

In SAVYASACHI K. SAHAI vs Union Of India, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by four applicants who claimed to be the sons of previous Mutawalli or caretakers of the dargah at Amir Khusro Park and, therefore, asserted their right to some construction inside the tikona graveyard park, also known as Amir Khusro park. Mohd Shakeel, Mohd Allauddin and Mohd Mehmood (claiming to be the three sons of the late Mohd Yusuf and the late Mohammed Yunus) and Mohd Nasir (son of Mohd Hakmuddin) had sought review of an order passed by the high court on May 16. Under the said order, the court had observed that the petitioners did not have sufficient documentary evidence to prove their claim and sought a status report from the authorities concerned. What the court said After examining all the submissions and evidence on record, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar held that presumption of possession over an open land always is deem

In Ahok Kr. Todi Vs. C.B.I., the Calcutta High Court dealt with framing of charges and held that - Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 216 (5) – Sanction – At the time of dealing with the Section 216(5) of Cr.P.C. the court is to see if any sanction has been given on same facts or not, irrespective of any offence. Criminal P.C. 1973 – Ss. 226 & 227 – When the court shall frame charges – What are the factors to be considered by the court at the time of disposal of an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Held, Court should be very cautious in allowing an application Section 227 Cr.P.C. because without affording any opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegation through witness, the accused gets an escape from the net of law. The Court is to see if any material for presumption is there or not. If the answer is affirmative, charge has to be framed. Criminal P.C. 1973 – Ss. 190 (1) (b) r/w. 197 – Cognizance – Supplementary Charge-sheet – What should be the basis – If the

In URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEE LTD. V/s. NEELKANTH TOWNSHIP AND CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD (Corporate Debtor), the THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL while deciding on the objection of the Corporate Debtor that the applicant herein cannot file this application as a financial creditor when the applicant is continuing as one of the shareholders of the Company replied that since this court has not said anywhere if the financial creditor happens to be shareholder as well, the shareholder in the capacity of financial creditor cannot initiate insolvency resolution process, since it is the case of the financial creditor that 90% of the funding arisen by the company is only through this claim, this applicant claim cannot be shut on the ground the applicant continuing as shareholder. As there is no legal bar against this applicant to make his claim as a financial creditor, this Bench cannot read into such proposition to deprive the right of this applicant. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the

In Anwar Basith v. ACIT, the Bangalore ITAT held that the income of minor beneficiaries can be clubbed to income of parents under section 64(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee was a partner of Firm, M/s. INJ Enterprises, along with her husband and three minor children with equal distribution of profit among the partners including the three beneficiaries. The partnership firm was dissolved in the year 1989 with a condition that all the 5 partners would possess the asset and the liability of the firm as coowners and tenants in common and have equal shares in land & building. One of the source of funds used by M/s. INJ Enterprises for construction and development of the aforesaid property was a loan from Dr. Nayeema Khan Trust for which the Firm was paying interest. The said Trust was formed by assessee and her husband, Mr. Maqsood Ahmed as a trustee and their children as beneficiaries of the trust. While completing assessment against the assessee, the AO noted that to Pay