When the petitioner seeks for cross-examination of the witnesses who have said that the recovery was made from the petitioner, necessarily an opportunity requires to be given for the cross-examination of the witnesses as regards the place at which recovery was made. Since the dispute concerns the confiscation of the jewellery, whether at conveyor belt or at the green channel, perhaps the witnesses were required to be called. But in view of confession made by him, it binds him and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case the failure to give him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is not violative of principle of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the panch witnesses before the authority takes a decision on proof of the offence. Continue reading →
As far as the applicability of Escorts Farms is concerned, the question that arose for consideration in that case was the determination of the cost of acquisition of the original shares when bonus shares are subsequently issued. That is the second part of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act and that question would arise (if at all) only after a finding is given by the High Court on the first part of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. But, as we have noted above, the High Court has not considered the interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. Continue reading →
All High Courts should keep close watch on functioning of DRTs and DRAT, which fall within their respective jurisdictions, and ensure their smooth, efficient and transparent working – Through timely and appropriate superintendence of High Courts, Tribunals can be made to adhere to rigor of appropriate standards indispensable to fair and efficient administration of justice. Continue reading →
It is a cardinal postulate of law that the burden of proving any form of mala fide lies on the shoulders of the one alleging it. This Court observed in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.[8] that “it cannot be overlooked that burden of establishingmalafides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations ofmalafides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of a high order of credibility.” Continue reading →
There can be no single formula to determine if a good is branded or not; such determination would vary from case to case. Also, our observations must be limited to this notification and not supplanted to other laws with similar subject matter pertaining to trade names and brand names. Continue reading →
Brand/trade name cannot be reduced to a label or sticker affixed on a goods – Test of whether goods is branded is indication of connection conveyed in course of trade between goods and person using brand name – Requirement of physical manifestation of brand name would lead to absurd results in case of goods incapable of physically bearing them, viz. liquids, soft drinks, milk, dairy products, etc. – Such goods can be said to be branded as long as its environment conveys so viz. packaging/wrapping, accessories, uniform of vendors, invoices, menu cards, hoardings/display boards of outlet, furniture/props, specific outlet itself in its entirety, and other such factors, all of which together or individually or in parts, may convey that goods is branded Continue reading →
Since the tax to be deducted at source is also computed on the estimated income of an assessee for the relevant financial year, such deduction cannot result in the disclosure of the total income for the relevant assessment year. Subject to the monetary limit of the total income, every person is obligated to file his return of income even after tax is deducted at source. Hence, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that mere deduction of tax at source, also, does not amount to disclosure of income, nor does it indicate the intention to disclose income most definitely when the same is not disclosed in the returns filed for the concerned assessment year. Continue reading →
A façade of a club cannot be constructed over commercial transactions to avoid liability to tax. Such setups cannot be permitted to claim double benefit of mutuality. Continue reading →
Extended period of limitation inapplicable when declaration under Rule 173B of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 contained the process of manufacture in question – CESTAT Order holding there was no suppression of fact hence extended period of limitation was not available upheld – Revenue’s appeal rejected Continue reading →
