|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1494 Records
-
2016 (6) TMI 1257
Refund claim - adjudicated dues - Held that: - only adjudicated dues are recoverable under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. Thus, the amount of ₹ 15,69,672/- have been wrongly appropriated. I further direct the adjudicating authority to refund the amount of ₹ 15,16,672/- with interest as per Rules within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order - So far the amount of ₹ 4,46,567/- is concerned, I find that the matter is pending pursuant to remand by this Tribunal vide the earlier order dated 2-9-2011.
The refund of ₹ 4,46,567/- will be subject to the finalisation of adjudication pursuant to remand - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1256
CENVAT credit - inputs - Plastic Granules - period October 2005 to Dec 2007 - fake invoices - it was alleged that the firms owned by Shri Mukesh Sangla issued cenvatable invoices to Appellant firm without actual delivery of goods - Held that: - the demand is made on the basis of records and statements of employees/ Director of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. The document and data relied upon was maintained mainly by Shri Kirti Kala, Cashier of M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. I find that these records were not maintained by M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. in regular course of business. Further, I find that the documents/ records relied upon by the revenue pertain to M/s Signet Overseas Ltd. have not been corroborated from any independent evidences. The same is nowhere corroborating with any evidence from the Appellant s record or documents. The investigation has not brought any incriminating documents from the Appellant.
None of the transporters have been questioned to ascertain whether any goods were diverted enroute to Appellant Unit. In absence of any investigation to that effect, I am of the view that the goods were received by the Appellant unit.
Confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty by the authorities below are not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1255
Addition on the basis of the Transfer Pricing Officer’s order u/s 92CA(3) - criteria for comparable selection - Held that:- Assessee is primarily engaged in the business of providing middle and back office service, fund administration for age fund, etc. Assessee also provides independent service essential to the launch and operation of private investment entities with activities ranging across and wide spectrum of traded instruments, thus functionally dissimilar companies with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparable.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1254
Assessment u/s 153A - addition u/s 40A - Held that:- undisputedly and admittedly, assessment for both the A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 has been completed on the date of search, i.e before 22.3.2011 and in this situation, as per ratio and summarised legal position laid down by Hon’ble High Court, in the case of Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] para 37(vii) completed assessment can be interfered by the AO while making assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed by the assessee or made known in the course of original assessment to the AO. Since no incriminating material pertaining to additions made by the AO u/s 40A(3) of the Act was unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or any subsequent post search enquiry or investigation and on the date of search assessment for both the A.Ys already stood completed, then no additions could have been made to the income already assessed in the original assessment proceedings.
On the basis of foregoing discussion, we are inclined to hold that the assessment orders framed by the AO u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act for both the A.Ys and additions made therein u/s 40A(3) of the Act are bad in law and thus the same are not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1253
TPA - selection criteria for comparable - Held that:- The international transactions entered into by the assessee was in respect of data processing rendered to its AE. The assessee has benchmarked the international transaction of data processing, using Cost Plus Method (CPM) as the most appropriate method (MAM) to arrive at Arm’s Length Price (ALP). Thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparable.
Addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 has held A.O. has not recorded satisfaction as required by law, before invoking section 14A. It has not been pointed out by the A.O. as to how the computation of disallowance u/s 14A done by the assessee was not correct. No error or defect has been pointed out. Under these circumstances, we have to apply the proposition laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investments Ltd.[2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court] and delete the addition made by the A.O.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1252
Proceedings for criminal contempt - Satish Mahadeorao Uke, have instituted various civil and criminal proceedings in this Court, against the sitting Judges of this Court, the officers of this Court, including lawyers and the Registrar - Held that:- The applicant has shown the tendency of continuing with such acts of contempt, as are reflected in the draft charges. The applicant has overstepped the limits of being the officer of this Court and as a lawyer appearing in person, he does not hold any wider protection while committing an act of contempt.
This Court cannot remain a silent spectator and a stern action prohibiting such acts will have to be taken during the pendency of the proceedings for contempt. The applicant either will have to be taken into judicial custody pending the decision of this proceeding or can be put to terms of giving an undertaking that he shall not, during the pendency of this proceeding, institute or publish any act covered by the draft charges framed either by himself personally or through anyone else. In the decision of the Apex Court in R.K. Anand's case, cited supra, it has been held that the Court has power to disallow advocate convicted in criminal contempt from appearing in Court. The Apex Court added in para 239 of the said decision that the Court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the malefactor from appearing before the Courts for an appropriate period of time.
In terms of Rule 5 in Part II of the Rules to regulate proceedings for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this order can constitute an information for taking suo motu action for contempt of Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, and it will have to be accordingly placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for appropriate orders in terms of clauses 5(f) and 5(g) of the said Rules. Hence, pass the following order :
(1) Issue notice to the applicant Satish Mahadeorao Uke to show cause as to why the proceedings for criminal contempt should not be instituted against him for the draft charges framed in this order? Notice is made returnable on 182016.
(2) This order be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in terms of clauses 5(f) and 5(g) of the Rules under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules to constitute the appropriate Division Bench, as required by Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to take cognizance of the act of contempt of Court by treating this order itself as a petition for contempt of Court, in accordance with law and Satish Mahadeorao Uke be shown as the contemnor.
(3) The Division Bench assigned with the matter may consider the question of taking Satish Mahadeorao Uke in judicial custody pending the decision of the contempt proceedings to prevent him from instituting such proceedings and/or publicizing the allegations against sitting Judges, officers of this Court, including lawyers practising in this Court, so as to cause an embarrassment and interference in the course of justice.
(4) During the pendency of the proceedings before Hon'ble the Chief Justice and/or before the Division Bench of this Court for taking decision on the cognizance of contempt of Court, the applicantSatish Mahadeorao Uke, who shall be the contemnor, is restrained from instituting any proceeding either himself or through anyone else to perpetuate the act of contempt of Court alleged in the draft charges framed in this order, and/or to approach any public communication system, including the newspaper and the media for publication of the allegations covered by the draft charges framed in this order.
(5) The Registry of this Court in the Principal Bench and the other Benches of this Court is directed not to entertain any litigation at the instance of the Satish Mahadeorao Uke involving the Registry of this Court, the sitting Judges of this Court, and other officers of this Court, including any lawyers practising in this Court, without an application for leave to institute such proceedings filed in this proceeding for contempt of Court. If such application is made, the office shall place the matter either before Hon'ble the Chief Justice if the matter is pending with him or before the appropriate Division Bench seized of the matter of contempt for passing appropriate orders.
(6) It is made clear that the Registry of this Court is not prevented from entertaining any petition, application, etc., at the instance of Satish Mahadeorao Uke in respect of the matters not related to the draft charges levelled in this order.
(7) The ad interim orders in terms of clauses (4) and (5) above, shall operate from today, i.e. 662016, and the same shall continue to operate till the decision on it by the Division Bench. All the aforesaid ad interim orders are subject to further orders to be passed by the Division Bench, which shall be assigned this matter by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Unless the orders are varied, the same shall continue to operate pending these proceedings.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1251
Applicability of provisions of section 54B - Held that:- The matter has come clear on remand to the A.O. by the ld. CIT(A). The land was no doubt self-cultivated by the assessee. However, this cultivation was through certain other persons, to whom the land was leased out for the purpose of cultivation. However, when the issue of sale of the land arose, these persons refused to budge and it was, accordingly, that the payment had to be made to them. This position was accepted by the AO in the remand report. AO was of the view that the provisions of section 54B of the Act were not attracted, since the land was not used by the assessee himself for agricultural purposes. Here, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the requirement under the law is that of the usage of the land, as to whether it is used for agricultural purposes or not. The reference, obviously, is to the land per se and not to the owner thereof.
Regarding the objection with regard to the registration qua the purchase of agricultural land having been effected before the date of sale, it remains undisputed that, as per the remand report, that the payments were made out of advance received by the assessee against the sale of land. Such payments having been made directly by the persons who purchased the land from the assessee, to the person who sold it to the assessee. The CBDT Circular No.359 dated 10.05.1983, though applicable to section 54E, as correctly observed by the ld. CIT(A), it is applicable equally to section 54B. In view of the above, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act was rightly allowed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Computation of capital gain - Held that:- Capital gain, on the basis of fair market value of the property as on 14.1981, such value was adopted at ₹ 2923/- per marla. This was based on the report of the local revenue authority, which remained undisputed. Besides, the valuation adopted regarding similar land was also relied on by the assessee, wherein, the valuation of ₹ 5000/- per marla had been considered.
CIT(A) was well justified in accepting the rate of ₹ 2923/- per marla as on 01.04.1981 concerning the assessee’s land. It was due to these facts that the CIT(A) arrived at the conclusion and, in our considered opinion, correctly so, that the computation of capital gain came to Nil. Moreover, the issue stands directly covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of brother and sister of the assessee, for A.Y. 2009-2010, i.e., the same assessment year, as the one under consideration herein. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1250
Addition on account of payment of royalty - established nexus between the services rendered and services required for the business - Held that:- We find that this issue has not come up for the first time. It was also there in the earlier assessment years. A perusal of the order of the First Appellate Authority shows that in earlier years, a similar disallowance was deleted by the Appellate Authorities. We also find that the royalty payment is pursuant to an agreement which was before the Assessing Authority, we do not find any logic/reason in making the disallowance. Since the First Appellate Authority has followed the findings given in earlier assessment years, no interference is called for. Ground no. 1 is accordingly dismissed.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1249
Reversal of input tax credit - stock transfer - TNVAT Act - Held that: - It may be true that the petitioner has not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer about this amendment. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer also did not appear to have been aware of the amendment. On that ground alone, the impugned orders of assessment insofar as it relates to ITC reversal for Stock Transfer covered by Form F is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration by taking into consideration the notification issued by the Government dated 29.01.2016, as observed earlier - the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer insofar as it relates to ITC reversal for Stock Transfer covered by Form F - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1248
Reversal of input tax credit - TNVAT Act - Held that: - It is clear that the petitioner's claim for refund was disbelieved and the claim stood rejected on factual grounds - The issue involves complicated and disputed questions of fact, and therefore, necessarily, the petitioner has to avail Appeal remedy available under the statute.
This Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition against the impugned order, but inclined to direct the petitioner to avail the Appeal remedy - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1247
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tax at source - Held that:- A.R. of the assessee, before us, has submitted that since the TDS was deducted by the concerned party/agent and some of the expenses were in the nature of reimbursement of actual expenditure; therefore, the disallowance was not warranted. He has submitted that he may be given an opportunity to demonstrate before the AO in this respect. Considering the above submissions of the Ld. A.R., we are of the view that interest of justice will be well served, if, the assessee is allowed an opportunity to demonstrate before the AO regarding the above submissions. We accordingly restore this issue to the file of the AO for consideration of the contentions of the assessee only in relation to payment made to M/s. J.N. Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. However, the disallowances made in respect of the other two parties M/s. M. Liladhar and M/s. Lincs Cargo Pvt. Ltd. are hereby confirmed.
Addition under section 69C - unconfirmed/unproved purchases - Held that:- Where the assessee filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through account payee cheques to suppliers and stock reconciliation statements, sale of purchased goods was not doubted, the transactions were supported with evidences and confirmations, in such an event merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A), one can not conclude that the purchases were not genuine. We do not find justification for the addition made by the lower authorities in this respect. Hence, the additions made by the lower authorities on account of bogus purchases under section 69C of the Act are therefore ordered to be deleted.
Additions made on account of excess stock - Held that:- CIT(A) observed from the quantitative details of sales and purchases of the two items, that the entire quantity of the said two items was sold/exported during the relevant year under consideration and no closing stock of these items was left with the assessee at the end of the relevant accounting year. That the assessee had duly explained the mistake resulting in showing the excess stock and the said mistake was duly rectified by filing a revised return within the limitation period prescribed. On account of these facts and evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the revised return filed by the assessee. He held that the mistake of wrongly showing the closing stock at the enhanced value of ₹ 80,98,900/- was fully verified and the same being inadvertent mistake apparent from record and the revised return being filed in time, the rejection of the said revised return by the AO was wrong. He directed the AO to accept the revised return and to delete the addition on account of excess stock of two items. No infirmity in the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) relating to the issue under consideration and the same is accordingly upheld.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1246
Sale of land - agricultural land or capital asset - nature of land - land converted - Held that:- As in assessee’s own case for the AYs 2007-08 to 2009-10 the admitted fact is that 188 cents of land was sold to various persons and an agreement was entered into for construction of villas. Therefore, it has to be ascertained what happened to the remaining part of the land after its conversion. The fact remains is that entire 512 cents of land was converted into residential plots on the basis of the resolution passed on 19-09-2006. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the certificate issued by the village officer goes against the fact admitted by the assessee. Since the assessee itself admits that the land was converted into housing plots as on19-09-2006 the same cannot remain as agricultural land for any longer. In other words, the purpose and usage of the land was converted into non-agricultural land as on 19-06-2006 and part of the land was sold as on 27-03-2007. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee itself claims that the land was converted into non agricultural land as on 19-06-2006 it cannot continue as agricultural land any further. Therefore, the certificate said to be issued by the village officer has no relevance in view of the facts admitted by the assessee. Hence, there is no justification in the claim of the assessee that the land is an agricultural land.
The authorities below are justified in holding that the land in question is capital asset liable for taxation - Decided against assessee.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1245
Reopening of assessment - depreciation/additional depreciation and inventory written off - change of opinion - Held that:- There is no dispute about the fact that the Assessing Officer issued section 142 notice to the assessee raising specific queries on 20-07-2005. There is no issue between the parties that clause 7 and 17 therein forming pages 255 and 256 of the paper book asked the assessee to produce all necessary details pertaining to depreciation/additional depreciation and inventory written off amounting ₹ 2.48 crores respectively. This followed assessee’s explanation tendered on 25-08-2005 and 23-09-2005 on the very issues. The Assessing Officer thereafter framed regular assessment on 31-03-2006 not rejecting the same. We are of the opinion in this factual backdrop that it can be safely inferred that the Assessing Officer duly agreed with the assessee’s explanation. The Revenue’s contention is that he had not mentioned anything in the assessment order on these issues. This fails to impress us.
We are of the opinion that it was beyond assessee’s control as to whether or not its relevant explanation formed part of discussion in assessment order. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer did not specific reject the corresponding explanation in the scrutiny assessment. We observe in this factual backdrop that he formed an opinion in assessee’s favour and reopened the said assessment subsequently without any fresh tangible material. We are of the view that the same amounts to mere change of opinion not permissible
Whether Assessing Officer in the course of scrutiny assessment had examined the issue of section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance and not that of interest income arising from GSIL loan? - Held that:- Once the assessee could not have booked the income in absence of any interest stipulation in loan agreement even by following accrual principle, Assessing Officer’s corresponding reason of reopening does not satisfy the cause-effect relationship reiterated hereinabove. We conclude that the issue as to whether or not the Assessing Officer had examined this issue in scrutiny has been rendered academic. The Revenue’s further contention that the tribunal had already examined the very issue (supra) is not borne out from the records comprising of reopening reasons. We accept assessee’s arguments and quash the impugned reopening. This renders other grounds on merits in both the cross appeals to have been rendered infructuous. - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (6) TMI 1244
Disallowing depreciation on goodwill - whether ‘Type Test Certification Fees’ and ‘Customer Approval Fees’ claimed by the assessee are eligible for depreciation u/s 32 - Held that:- Ratio of the judgment cited as Areva T and D India Ltd. (2012 (4) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the considered view that ‘Type Test Certification Fees’ and ‘Customer Approval Fees’ are certainly intangible assets being business claims, business information, contracts and know-how etc., which were intangible and without which the assessee would have no business to start with. Thus, rights of the similar nature specified in section 32(1)(ii) of the Act are eligible for depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1243
Claim of deduction u/s. 54F - Disallowing deduction on account of Long Term Capital Gains as new residential house was not purchased within the time limit prescribed u/s 54 - Held that:- Referring to the case law of V M Dujodwala (1990 (10) TMI 122 - ITAT BOMBAY-D ) coordinate bench of this Tribunal and also Smt. Beena K Jain,[1993 (11) TMI 7 - BOMBAY High Court], we are of the view that the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act is to be reckoned from the date of handing over of the possession of the flat by the builder to the assessee i.e. 11.09.2009, and if we take that date, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 of the Act because the assessee has sold his residential flat on 24.02.2010. We allow the assessee’s claim and order accordingly.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1242
Surrender of tenancy - Held that:- It is no doubt true that the plaintiff has pleaded in his plaint by way of amendment that the defendant No.2 was initially the tenant, who surrendered his tenancy on 15-4-1984, and with effect from 16-4-1984, the defendant No.1 was considered as the tenant in respect of the suit property. This was introduced in view of the stand taken by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their separate written statement that it is the defendant No.2 who is the tenant and not the defendant No.1. In fact, the Trial Court deleted the issue as to whether the defendant No.2 proves that the defendant No.1 alone is the tenant of the suit property. Since the defendant No.2 has surrendered such an issue, the consequential amendment of pleadings by the plaintiff loses its significance. It was, therefore, not necessary for the lower Appellate Court to decide the question as to whether the surrender of tenancy was proved or not. The substantial questions of law at Serial Nos.1 and 3 are, therefore, answered accordingly.
Admissibility of document at Exhibit 50 - Held that:- The non-registration of document would not come in the way of the Court to hold that the relationship of "Landlord and Tenant" between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in the present case has been established, coupled with the other evidence available on record. The substantial questions of law at Serial No.2 is answered accordingly.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1241
Application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure - eschew the evidence - whether letting in oral evidence by the respondent cannot be permitted? - Held that:- The issue with regard to the maintainability of the Application can be decided in the Section 47 Application and that cannot be put against the respondent/Judgment Debtor for letting in oral evidence and marking the documents in Section 47 Application. In order to establish his case, the respondent/Judgment Debtor has got every right to let in oral evidence and mark the documents. The respondent cannot be prevented from letting in oral evidence and marking documents in Section 47 Application. Under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
Execution Court has rightly rejected the Application to eschew the evidence of P.W.1 and to dismiss the Section 47 Application as not maintainable. The Execution Court can decide the issue with regard to the maintainability of the Section 47 Application while disposing of the Section 47 Application. It is needless to say that the petitioner/Decree Holder shall have the right of cross examining the respondent/Judgment Debtor and it is also open to the petitioner to let in oral and documentary evidences in the Section 47 Application.
In these circumstances, we do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Execution Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1240
Software expenditure - nature of expenditure - Held that:- The functional test would become material and if on application of the same, it is found that the expenditure operates to confer benefit in the revenue field, then the same would be revenue expenditure, irrespective of the duration of time for which the assessee acquires rights in a software. It has been held that the period of advantage in the context of computer software should not be viewed from the point of view of different assets or advantage like tenancy or use of know-how because software is a business tool enabling a businessman to run his business. It is thus necessary that in order to treat any expenditure as capital expenditure the same should result in accrual of advantage of enduring benefit and the benefits should accrue to the assessee in the capital field. What is meant by accrual of benefit in the capital field that the said benefit should form part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee’s business. In the facts of the present case, we find there is no discussion on facts. The argument that the issue should be decided on the basis of past precedent cannot be accepted as the issue is purely factual and the relevant discussion on facts both by the taxpayer and the tax authorities is found to be missing. We find that the description of the softwares acquired given before the CIT(A) does not throw any light on the nature, use or purpose of the software which has to be understood in the context of its functional use to the taxpayer’s specific business. Accordingly, for this necessary exercise the issue is restored to the file of the AO. The assessee is given liberty to place necessary supporting evidences in support of its claim.
Claim deferred revenue expenditure - Held that:- There is no dispute about the fact that assessee had incurred the expenditure and the expenses are not of capital nature, therefore, as per section 37 of Act, these are allowable in the year in which such expenditure has been incurred. The A.O. had relied upon the judgement of Madras Industrial Corpn. For disallowing a part of expenditure. However, in the judgement of Madras Industrial Investment [1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] had held that expenditure can be spread over a period of time provided the assessee decides to do so and therefore, from the above judgement it can be concluded that right to claim deferred revenue expenditure is given to assessee and not to revenue
Deduction as foreign exchange loss allowed.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1239
Rental income - Income received towards provision of amenities under the head Income from house property - nature of income - let out of property - expenses incurred towards security services and pantry services adjustment - Held that:- The assessee has let out the two storey building to only one tenant. The nature of amenities claimed to have been provided consisted of security services, building maintenance, car parking facility, pantry services. The electricity expenses incurred by the assessee are being reimbursed by the tenant. As notice that the security services and pantry services are not germane to the letting of building, but other services are part and parcel of letting of building. Hence the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Shambu Investments (2001 (3) TMI 77 - CALCUTTA High Court) shall squarely apply to the assessee. Also agree with the Ld D.R that the principle of res-judicata shall not apply to income tax proceedings.
Thus the predominantly, the receipts towards amenities are to be considered as part of rental income only. However, as stated earlier, the expenses incurred towards security services and pantry services are not connected to the rental income and hence they should be deducted from the receipts towards amenities. Accordingly the only net receipts after deduction of above said income should be considered as part of rental receipts. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2016 (6) TMI 1238
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal correctly followed the Kerala High Court's decision as a precedent?
2. Whether the Tribunal's order was legal despite the JMC not fulfilling certain conditions?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Kerala High Court's decision without discussing its applicability to the case?
Analysis:
1. The first issue raised in the appeal questions whether the Tribunal was justified in following the Kerala High Court's decision as a precedent. The appellant argued that the Kerala High Court's judgment was specific to the facts of that case and should not have been applied as a general precedent. This issue challenges the legal correctness of the Tribunal's decision-making process in relying on external judgments without considering their applicability to the present case.
2. The second issue pertains to the legality of the Tribunal's order despite the JMC (Joint Management Committee) not meeting the conditions of Notification No. 10/2003-S.T. The appellant highlighted that the JMC collected fees from students in two parts, with one part sent to the University and the other retained for conducting classes. The question here is whether the Tribunal overlooked crucial facts regarding the JMC's compliance with regulations, raising concerns about the legality and validity of the Tribunal's decision in light of these discrepancies.
3. The third issue questions whether the Tribunal erred in applying the Kerala High Court's decision without a detailed discussion on its relevance to the case at hand. The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to analyze the facts of the present case and how they differed from the precedent set by the Kerala High Court. This issue emphasizes the importance of a thorough and case-specific analysis by the Tribunal before applying external judgments to ensure the legal soundness of its decisions.
In the hearing, the appellant's counsel, based on instructions from the appellant department, sought to withdraw the appeal in compliance with Circular No. I/10/10/2016 Legal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, leaving the substantial legal questions raised in the appeal open for future consideration. No costs were awarded in the dismissal of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3726 of 2010, maintaining the status of the legal issues for potential review or further proceedings.
............
|
9911796707
