Maya Rani Punj (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Sundaresh Bhatt vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) to make a bid in respect of the consolidated assets of the Corporate Debtor. In its anxiety to claim a vested right as an Anchor Bidder, the appellant tends to forget that the Swiss Challenge Process adopted by the 38 (1993) 1 SCC 445 39 (2002) 2 SCC 468 40 (2006) 11 SCC 548 41 (2007) 14 SCC 517 42 (2016) 16 SCC 818 Page 52 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 respondent No.2 – Liquidator also falls in the category of a Private Sale, referred to in Schedule-I(2) under Regulation 33 of the Liquidation Regulations. For conducting a Private Sale, a…

Chandrakant S/O Tammanna Majagi vs. Karnataka State Bar Council

Appeal is allowed

Bench: M.I.ARUN,G.NARENDAR

…rinciple of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process". In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd.,(1993)1 SCC 445 at page 464 para 28, it was held that even in commercial contracts where there is a - 42 - public element, it is necessary that relevant considerations are taken into account and the irrelevant consideration discarded. In Union of India v. Graphic Industries Co., (1994)5 SCC 398, this Court held that even in contractual matters publ…

Sasi Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

…-paid taxes. Considerable reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in Prakash Nath Khanna and another (supra). Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of this Court in Maya Rani Punj (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1986) 1 SCC 445. 12. Learned ASG also explained the scope of Section 278E by placing reliance on P.R. Metrani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 1 SCC 789, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, and Page 14 JUDGMENT 14 submitted that pendency of the appellate proceedings is not a relevant factor in relation to prosecu…

Sasi Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

…-paid taxes. Considerable reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in Prakash Nath Khanna and another (supra). Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of this Court in Maya Rani Punj (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1986) 1 SCC 445. 12. Learned ASG also explained the scope of Section 278E by placing reliance on P.R. Metrani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 1 SCC 789, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, and Page 14 JUDGMENT 14 submitted that pendency of the appellate proceedings is not a relevant factor in relation to prosecu…

Commnr. of Central Excise vs. M/S. G. Dayaram & Co

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

…the case of M/s. Hindu Jea Band v. ESIC (1987) 2 SCC 101; M/s. Cochin Shipping Co. v. ESIC (1992) 4 SCC 245; and Transport Corporation of India v. ESIC (2000) 1 SCC 332. It is further submitted that the case of ESIC vs. R.K. Swamy & Ors (1994) 1 SCC 445 and ESIC vs. Hyderabad Race Club (2004) 6 SCC 191 requires reconsideration. He further submits that the common thread, as it would appear from the various judgments cited in this regard, for ascertaining whether a premises Page 14 JUDGMENT 14 may be called a shop, would be that such a place is commonly used…