Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 558 Records

• 2012 (2) TMI 747
  
  In the case before the Calcutta High Court, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 11, 11B, and 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992, as well as an order issued by SEBI on December 28, 2011. The petitioners argued that the High Court was the appropriate forum for such constitutional challenges, as the Tribunal could not assess the validity of the Act's provisions. They also contended that the SEBI order was issued without jurisdiction and demonstrated a "non-application of mind."
  
  The Additional Solicitor General, representing SEBI and the Union of India, argued that the High Court should decide the constitutional validity issues and defended the SEBI order, suggesting that the petitioners should seek remedies through the Tribunal.
  
  Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas decided to admit the writ petition but refused to stay the SEBI order, reasoning that a stay would cause more harm to those benefiting from the order than any potential harm to the petitioners. The Court ordered that SEBI should not issue further orders in the pending proceedings during the writ petition's pendency. The respondents were directed to file their opposition within four weeks, with a reply due one week thereafter, and the petitioners were granted liberty to apply for an interim order concerning a specific direction in the SEBI order.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 746
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to the claimed amount from the respondent Company based on the contractual agreement.
  • Whether the Company has a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged overcharging by the petitioner.
  • Whether the petition for winding up the Company is justified based on the Company's inability to pay its debts.
  • Whether the defense raised by the Company constitutes a bona fide dispute or is merely an abuse of the court's process.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Entitlement to Claimed Amount

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves the contractual obligations between the petitioner and the Company, as well as the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 concerning winding up due to inability to pay debts.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted the contractual terms as clear and specific, indicating that the petitioner was entitled to the amounts claimed based on the agreed terms.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the petitioner had fulfilled its obligations by financing the purchase of newsprint and delivering it to the Company, and that the Company had acknowledged these transactions without raising objections at the time.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the contractual terms to determine that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed amount, including interest and service charges as per the agreement.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed the Company's argument of overcharging, finding no evidence to support such claims.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed amount of Rs. 79,65,229.81 with interest and service charges.

  Issue 2: Bona Fide Dispute on Overcharging

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Companies Act, 1956, regarding the grounds for winding up petitions and the requirement for a bona fide dispute.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the Company's claim of overcharging was not substantiated by any evidence and was raised only after the demand for payment.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the absence of any objections from the Company at the time of transactions and the lack of evidence supporting the overcharge claim.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the alleged overcharge was not a bona fide dispute, as it lacked substantive evidence and was inconsistent with the contractual terms.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court rejected the Company's defense as an afterthought and not bona fide.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the petitioner's claim.

  Issue 3: Justification for Winding Up Petition

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Companies Act, 1956, specifically Section 434 regarding the inability to pay debts as grounds for winding up.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the Company had failed to pay its debts and had not provided a bona fide defense against the petitioner's claims.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court observed the Company's failure to settle the dues despite multiple opportunities and negotiations.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal provisions to determine that the Company's inability to pay its debts justified the winding up petition.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court dismissed the Company's arguments as lacking substance and not constituting a bona fide dispute.
  • Conclusions: The court admitted the winding up application, subject to conditions for installment payments by the Company.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The terms and conditions of the contract are very specific. It appears that the Company itself placed the orders with the mills on an agreed price between them and the petitioner Company financed such purchase by paying the price inclusive of basic price, excise & tax at prevailing rate, cess, transportation from mill to destination 45 days interest, storage charges and service charges as per the agreed terms of contract note signed by both petitioner and the Company."
  • Core Principles Established: A company cannot dispute agreed contractual terms without substantive evidence, and mere filing of a suit does not constitute a bona fide dispute.
  • Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed amount, there was no bona fide dispute, and the winding up petition was justified. The Company was granted an opportunity to pay the dues in installments to avoid winding up.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 745
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for directing a statutory body to permit the operation of a Demat account that has been frozen due to a criminal complaint.
  • Whether the third respondent, a depository, has the authority to freeze the Demat account of the petitioner based on a criminal complaint involving disputed shares.
  • Whether the petitioner has any recourse under the law to challenge the freezing of the Demat account and seek relief for the contractual dispute over share transfers.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue certain writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The maintainability of a writ petition depends on whether the issue involves public law or purely private contractual disputes.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that the dispute primarily involved contractual agreements between the petitioner and the third respondent, with the first respondent (SEBI) being a supervisory authority without direct involvement in the contract. The court highlighted that Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy for resolving disputes with significant factual contentions.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court noted the existence of a criminal complaint filed by the family of Deepak Bhatia, which questioned the legitimacy of the share transfer, leading to the freezing of the Demat account.
  • Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles governing the scope of Article 226, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction is not suitable for resolving complex factual disputes inherent in private contractual matters.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued for relief under Article 226, while the respondents contended that the dispute was contractual and not within the purview of writ jurisdiction.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable under Article 226, as it involved disputed facts related to a private contractual agreement.

  Issue 2: Authority of the Third Respondent to Freeze the Demat Account

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The authority of depositories to freeze accounts is typically governed by their contractual terms and regulatory framework under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged that the third respondent acted upon a criminal complaint, which raised doubts about the legitimacy of the share transfer. However, it did not delve into the specific authority of the third respondent to freeze accounts, as the writ petition was deemed not maintainable.
  • Key evidence and findings: The freezing of the account was a direct consequence of the criminal complaint involving disputed shares.
  • Application of law to facts: The court did not specifically address the legality of the freezing action, focusing instead on the maintainability of the writ petition.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued against the freezing, while the respondents justified it based on the ongoing criminal investigation.
  • Conclusions: The court did not make a definitive ruling on the authority of the third respondent to freeze the account, as the primary focus was on the maintainability of the writ petition.

  Issue 3: Legal Recourse for the Petitioner

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner may seek remedies through civil litigation or arbitration, depending on the contractual terms and the nature of the dispute.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court suggested that the petitioner could pursue remedies in an appropriate forum, such as a civil court, to address the contractual dispute and the freezing of the Demat account.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court recognized the contractual nature of the dispute and the existence of a criminal complaint affecting the account's status.
  • Application of law to facts: The court directed the petitioner to seek alternative legal remedies outside the writ jurisdiction.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The court did not engage deeply with arguments on this issue, as it was beyond the scope of the writ petition.
  • Conclusions: The petitioner was advised to pursue other legal avenues for relief concerning the Demat account and the contractual dispute.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable and the contractual question is only a question of fact."
  • Core principles established: The court reaffirmed that Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy for disputes involving significant factual contentions and private contractual matters.
  • Final determinations on each issue: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the petitioner was directed to seek remedies through appropriate legal channels.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 744
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the proceedings initiated by SEBI against the petitioner should be kept in abeyance during the pendency of the criminal trial involving the same or overlapping allegations.
  • Whether the SEBI has the authority to proceed with disciplinary actions despite ongoing criminal proceedings, and whether such actions violate the petitioner's rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
  • What interim measures should be imposed on the petitioner during the pendency of SEBI's proceedings?

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Whether SEBI proceedings should be kept in abeyance during the criminal trial?

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's decision in M. Paul Antony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., which suggests that disciplinary proceedings should be stayed during the pendency of criminal trials to avoid prejudice.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the SEBI proceedings are remedial and preventive, aimed at protecting investors and the integrity of the securities market. The court observed that SEBI's actions are not punitive but are intended to prevent further harm.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court considered the petitioner's involvement in the Satyam Scam and the necessity for SEBI to act expeditiously to protect investors.
  • Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that regulatory bodies like SEBI can proceed with their inquiries independently of criminal proceedings, as their objectives differ.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: While the petitioner argued for the abeyance of SEBI proceedings, SEBI contended that delaying their actions would harm investors. The court sided with SEBI, emphasizing the need for timely regulatory actions.
  • Conclusions: The court concluded that SEBI proceedings should not be kept in abeyance and should proceed on merits.

  Issue 2: Interim measures during SEBI proceedings

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: SEBI's authority under sections 11, 11(4), and 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992, and relevant regulations empower it to take preventive measures.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that interim measures are necessary to prevent the petitioner from causing further harm to the securities market.
  • Key evidence and findings: The court found that the petitioner's actions, as alleged, warranted restrictions to protect market integrity.
  • Application of law to facts: The court applied SEBI's regulatory framework to impose restrictions on the petitioner's activities in the securities market.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument against interim measures was outweighed by SEBI's need to protect investors.
  • Conclusions: The court imposed specific restrictions on the petitioner's activities, including prohibitions on issuing compliance certificates and accessing the securities market.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The court emphasized that "the proceedings initiated by SEBI are really in the nature of remedial or preventive measures, therefore, need not be postponed till the conclusion of criminal trials."
  • Core principles established: Regulatory proceedings by bodies like SEBI can proceed independently of criminal trials, as their objectives are preventive and protective rather than punitive.
  • Final determinations on each issue: The court directed SEBI to commence proceedings against the petitioner and imposed interim restrictions on the petitioner's activities in the securities market.

  The court's decision underscores the importance of regulatory bodies acting swiftly to protect market integrity and investor interests, even amidst ongoing criminal proceedings. The judgment balances the petitioner's rights with the need for effective market regulation, setting a precedent for similar cases involving overlapping criminal and regulatory issues.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 743
  
  In the case before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged an order dated 18th January 2011 issued by a Whole Time Member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The court, comprising Hon'ble Mohit S. Shah, C.J. and Ranjit More, J., addressed the petition by referencing a similar case, Writ Petition No. 1900 of 2011, and disposed of the current petition in accordance with the directions from that case.
  
  Key directives from the court included:
  
  1. SEBI is to commence proceedings against the petitioner based on show cause notices dated 14th February 2009 and 19th February 2010, starting the week of 7th May 2012. The court emphasized that these proceedings should not conflict with ongoing criminal trials (CC 1/10, CC 2/10, and CC 3/10) in the Court of XXI ACMM, Hyderabad.
  
  2. During the pending proceedings, the petitioner is prohibited from:
  - Issuing certificates regarding compliance obligations of listed companies and SEBI-registered intermediaries under relevant securities laws.
  - Accessing the securities market, specifically in relation to buying, selling, or dealing in the securities of Satyam and its associated companies.
  - Accessing the securities market, except for disposing of shares in companies other than Satyam Computer Services Limited (SCSL), with a requirement to notify SEBI of such transactions within a week.
  
  3. SEBI is authorized to instruct listed companies and registered intermediaries not to engage the petitioner's services for compliance certification until the proceedings related to the show cause notices are resolved.
  
  The court clarified that the order was issued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties involved, leaving all questions open for future consideration.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 742
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The legal judgment primarily revolves around the following core issues:

  • Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the review application filed by the Custodian seeking eviction of the Respondents from the attached property under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities Act, 1992).
  • Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the Court's earlier order dated 16/12/2010, justifying a review of the decision.
  • Whether the provisions of the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, had an overriding effect over other Acts, particularly in terms of jurisdiction over the attached properties.
  • Whether the rights and liabilities of the tenants in the attached property were extinguished upon attachment under the said Act.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, particularly sections 3(3), 9A, and 13, were central to determining the jurisdiction. The Court referred to several judgments, including Solidaire India Ltd vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and Bank of India vs. Ketan Parekh, to assess jurisdictional boundaries.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to evict tenants from the attached property, as this power was not vested in it by the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992. The jurisdiction was exclusively with the Rent Court.
  • Key evidence and findings: The Court relied on the Apex Court's order confirming the status of the Respondents as tenants and the binding nature of the Consent Terms filed in the Special Court.
  • Application of law to facts: The Court applied the provisions of the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, and the Apex Court's decision to determine that it had no jurisdiction over eviction matters concerning the attached property.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The Custodian argued that the Special Court had exclusive jurisdiction over attached properties. However, the Court found that tenant rights were to be adjudicated by the Rent Court.
  • Conclusions: The High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the eviction application under the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992.

  Issue 2: Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined precedents such as Mt. Jamna Kuer vs. Lal Bahadur and others, which outline the grounds for reviewing a decision based on errors apparent on the record.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found no error of law apparent on the face of the record in its previous decision, and thus no grounds for review.
  • Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the matter was fully argued during the original proceedings, and no new material error was identified.
  • Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that oversight or mistakes by counsel do not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The Custodian's argument that the lack of reference to certain judgments constituted an error was rejected.
  • Conclusions: No error justifying a review was found in the original order.

  Issue 3: Overriding Effect of the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992

  • Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the overriding provisions of the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, particularly section 13.
  • Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court determined that the Act did not extinguish the rights and liabilities of tenants in attached properties.
  • Key evidence and findings: The Court emphasized that tenant rights must be adjudicated by the Rent Court, not the Special Court.
  • Application of law to facts: The Court applied the provisions of the Act to conclude that tenant rights were preserved despite the attachment.
  • Treatment of competing arguments: The Custodian's argument for an overriding effect was not accepted, as tenant rights were deemed to fall under the jurisdiction of the Rent Court.
  • Conclusions: The Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, did not override tenant rights in attached properties.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "In view of the order passed by the Apex Court, it was observed that this Court did not have jurisdiction to evict the tenants since the said jurisdiction was not vested in this Court."
  • Core principles established: The jurisdiction over eviction matters from attached properties under the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, lies with the Rent Court, not the High Court.
  • Final determinations on each issue: The review application was dismissed as the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record, and the jurisdictional argument of the Custodian was rejected.

  In summary, the High Court dismissed the review application, affirming that it lacked jurisdiction to evict tenants from attached properties under the Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, and found no error in its previous order that warranted a review.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 741
  

  1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

  • Whether the addition of Rs. 41,33,825/- as income exempted under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, from long-term capital gains on the sale of shares, was justified.
  • Whether the transactions of shares were genuine or bogus as alleged by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
  • Whether the tax calculation on short-term capital gains of Rs. 53,901/- should be at the normal rate or the special rate of 10% prescribed under section 111(A) of the Act.
  • Whether the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a genuine advance against the sale of agricultural land was justified.
  • Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,06,20,000/- made on account of undisclosed income from the sale of shares and unexplained investment was justified.

  2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Issue 1: Exemption under Section 10(38)

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act provides for exemption on long-term capital gains from the sale of equity shares.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined the genuineness of the share transactions and the holding period of the shares to determine eligibility for exemption.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided purchase bills and Demat account statements. However, the AO found discrepancies in the purchase dates and the broker's credibility.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the shares were credited in the Demat account on 1.3.2005, which was within the same financial year, thus not meeting the 12-month holding requirement for exemption.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the assessee's claim of holding shares for more than 12 months but upheld the AO's findings on the purchase date.
  • Conclusions: The court confirmed the AO's denial of exemption under Section 10(38) but acknowledged the genuineness of the transactions.

  Issue 2: Allegation of Bogus Transactions

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of transactions.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court focused on the evidence provided and the AO's findings regarding the broker's default status.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the lack of credible evidence from the assessee to refute the AO's claims.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court upheld the AO's conclusion that the transactions were not genuine based on the evidence presented.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the assessee's defense but found it insufficient to overturn the AO's decision.
  • Conclusions: The court upheld the AO's action regarding the alleged bogus transactions.

  Issue 3: Tax Rate on Short-Term Capital Gains

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 111(A) prescribes a special tax rate of 10% for short-term capital gains under specific conditions.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined whether the conditions for the special rate were met.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the assessee did not provide necessary details to justify the special rate.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court agreed with the AO's decision to tax the gains at the normal rate due to lack of evidence.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the assessee's argument for the special rate but found it unsubstantiated.
  • Conclusions: The court upheld the AO's decision to apply the normal tax rate.

  Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- for Advance Against Land Sale

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessee must establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court focused on the evidence of the transaction and the identity of the person involved.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of the transaction's genuineness.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court upheld the AO's addition due to lack of evidence.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the assessee's explanations but found them inadequate.
  • Conclusions: The court confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

  Issue 5: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 1,06,20,000/-

  • Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The AO must substantiate claims of undisclosed income and unexplained investments.
  • Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined the evidence of share transactions and the AO's basis for the addition.
  • Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the AO's calculations were based on incorrect assumptions and lacked evidence.
  • Application of Law to Facts: The court agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition was unwarranted and based on hypothetical figures.
  • Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the AO's arguments but found them unsupported by evidence.
  • Conclusions: The court upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

  3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  • Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The genuineness of purchases is duly established as per the documents placed on record."
  • Core Principles Established: The burden of proof for claiming exemptions and establishing genuineness of transactions lies with the assessee.
  • Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court upheld the denial of exemption under Section 10(38), confirmed the genuineness of transactions, applied the normal tax rate on short-term capital gains, confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and upheld the deletion of Rs. 1,06,20,000/-.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 740
  
  The Bombay High Court admitted the appeal on questions regarding eligibility for deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for a Chennai Industrial Undertaking and Sahibabad Unit. Other questions were resolved based on previous judgments.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 739
  
  Issues involved:
  1. Valuation of closing stock using LIFO method
  2. Eligibility of Chennai Industrial Undertaking for deduction u/s. 80IA
  3. Eligibility of Sahibabad Unit for deduction u/s. 80IA
  4. Nexus between investment in dividend earning shares and borrowed money
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. Valuation of closing stock using LIFO method:
  The appeal raised questions regarding the valuation of closing stock using the Last in First Out (LIFO) method. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to value the closing stock according to the LIFO method, citing the Assessee's consistent use of this method since Assessment Year 1987-88. The Court noted previous instances where the Tribunal accepted the LIFO method for valuing closing stock in various assessment years, and the Revenue did not challenge it. The Court found the LIFO method to be an accepted valuation method, regularly followed by the Assessee, and in compliance with accounting standards. As a result, the Court did not find it appropriate to entertain the appeal on this issue.
  
  2. Eligibility of Chennai Industrial Undertaking for deduction u/s. 80IA:
  The appeal questioned the eligibility of the Chennai Industrial Undertaking for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had held that the Chennai Industrial Undertaking was indeed eligible for the deduction. The Court admitted the appeal on this issue for further consideration.
  
  3. Eligibility of Sahibabad Unit for deduction u/s. 80IA:
  Similar to the previous issue, the eligibility of the Sahibabad Unit for deduction under Section 80IA was also raised in the appeal. The Tribunal had found the Sahibabad Unit to be eligible for the deduction. The Court admitted the appeal on this issue as well for detailed examination.
  
  4. Nexus between investment in dividend earning shares and borrowed money:
  The appeal raised a question about the nexus between the investment in dividend-earning shares and the money borrowed. The Tribunal's view on this matter was found to be consistent with previous judgments by Division Benches of the Court. The Tribunal held that only actual expenses incurred should be considered for allowing a deduction under Section 80M. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was in line with established legal principles and did not raise any substantial question of law, thus not warranting further consideration.
  
  In conclusion, the Court admitted the appeal for detailed consideration on the eligibility of the Chennai Industrial Undertaking and the Sahibabad Unit for deduction under Section 80IA, while dismissing the appeal on the valuation of closing stock using the LIFO method and the nexus between investment in dividend-earning shares and borrowed money.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 738
  
  Issues:
  1. Dismissal of complaint against accused under Section 406 IPC.
  2. Challenge to the order of Metropolitan Magistrate.
  3. Filing of subsequent complaint without disclosing earlier complaint.
  4. Vicarious liability of directors under SEBI Act.
  5. Vicarious liability of company directors in criminal offenses.
  6. Maintaining multiple complaints for the same cause of action.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The judgment revolves around the dismissal of a complaint against accused Nos. 7 & 8 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate found that the accused had misappropriated money entrusted to them by the complainant. However, the allegation of threatening the complainant was not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of that part of the complaint.
  
  2. The complainant challenged the Metropolitan Magistrate's order through a criminal revision before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the revision, thereby finalizing the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
  
  3. The issue of filing a subsequent complaint without disclosing the earlier complaint was raised. The respondent filed a second complaint with the same cause of action as the first complaint, which had been dismissed and attained finality. The court held that filing a subsequent complaint on the same cause of action was not maintainable.
  
  4. The judgment also delves into the vicarious liability of directors under the SEBI Act. It cites Sections 27 & 32 of the SEBI Act, emphasizing that directors can be held liable for offenses committed by a company if they were in charge of the company's conduct. However, directors cannot be held vicariously liable if they prove lack of knowledge or due diligence.
  
  5. The judgment further clarifies that directors of a company cannot be held vicariously liable for offenses committed by the company unless the company itself is also accused. The court highlighted that the impugned order did not show any illegality or infirmity in this regard.
  
  6. Lastly, the judgment addresses the issue of maintaining multiple complaints for the same cause of action. The court quashed the subsequent complaint filed by the respondent on the same cause of action after the first complaint had been dismissed and attained finality. Consequently, all proceedings emanating from the subsequent complaint were set aside.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the dismissal of the complaint, challenges to the Metropolitan Magistrate's order, non-disclosure of earlier complaints, vicarious liability of directors under the SEBI Act, and the implications of maintaining multiple complaints for the same cause of action.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 737
  
  Issues:
  Grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on political vendetta, delay in lodging FIR against the appellant, involvement of the appellant in a criminal conspiracy leading to deaths, opposing views on the seriousness of the alleged crimes, consideration of bail parameters like tampering with evidence and absconsion, and the decision to allow bail with specific conditions.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment pertains to an appeal against a High Court decision on a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant, an elected Member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, claimed political vendetta as the reason for being named in a FIR nine years after the incident. The FIR accused him of a criminal conspiracy resulting in the deaths of seven individuals. Notably, the appellant was not named in earlier FIRs related to the same incident, and the cases from those FIRs ended in acquittal. The delay in implicating the appellant raised suspicions of motivation behind the accusations.
  
  The appellant's counsel argued that the grounds for denying bail, such as tampering with evidence or absconsion, did not apply in this case. Given the appellant's status as an MLA and former Minister, the likelihood of absconsion was deemed remote. The defense contended that the appellant had not interfered with the investigation during the nine-year gap and had previously been granted anticipatory bail without misuse. The defense also highlighted that the appellant had been acquitted in previous cases arising from the same incident.
  
  On the contrary, the prosecution vehemently opposed bail, citing the gravity of the alleged crimes, which they claimed had caused a serious law and order situation. They argued that the crimes were part of a well-conceived conspiracy led by the appellant, and witnesses had attested to his presence during the incident. The prosecution emphasized the heinous nature of the offenses and the need to maintain public order by denying bail.
  
  After considering both sides, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant's bail plea. The Court noted the absence of the appellant's name in the initial FIRs and the lack of evidence of interference with the investigation. While acknowledging the possibility of witness tampering, the Court imposed specific conditions on the appellant's bail, including restrictions on his movement and regular reporting to the police. The Court emphasized the need for the appellant's presence during the trial and directed the trial Court to ensure compliance with the imposed conditions.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 736
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Conservation and preservation of the Asiatic Wild Buffalo.
  2. Financial constraints and funding for wildlife conservation.
  3. Human-wildlife conflict.
  4. Implementation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
  5. Role of State and Central Government in wildlife conservation.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Conservation and Preservation of the Asiatic Wild Buffalo:
  The learned Amicus Curiae sought directions for the Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh to prepare a rescue plan to save the endangered Asiatic Wild Buffalo, ensure genetic purity, and relocate villagers from the Udanti Sanctuary. The State of Chhattisgarh filed an affidavit detailing steps taken, including an MoU with the Wildlife Trust of India and efforts to relocate villagers.
  
  2. Financial Constraints and Funding for Wildlife Conservation:
  The State of Chhattisgarh highlighted financial shortages hindering the implementation of conservation plans. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) titled "Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats" was introduced, providing 100% assistance for non-recurring items and 50% for recurring expenses, with special provisions for highly endangered species like the wild buffalo.
  
  3. Human-Wildlife Conflict:
  The judgment emphasized that human-wildlife conflict is a critical threat to endangered species, often resulting from human encroachment into animal habitats. Effective management practices, such as conservation education, resettlement of villages, and prey-preservation, were recommended to mitigate these conflicts.
  
  4. Implementation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:
  The Act empowers State Governments to declare areas as sanctuaries and conservation reserves. The judgment noted the necessity of implementing proper management measures for preserving the wild buffalo, as outlined in the National Wildlife Action Plan (2002-2016) and the CSS.
  
  5. Role of State and Central Government in Wildlife Conservation:
  The judgment highlighted the concurrent responsibility of both Central and State Governments in wildlife conservation. The State of Chhattisgarh was directed to fully implement the CSS, ensure genetic purity of wild buffalo, conduct intensive research, and submit an Annual Plan of Operations to the Central Government.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to fully implement the Centrally Sponsored Scheme "Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats" to save the wild buffalo from extinction, ensure genetic purity, conduct research, and submit an Annual Plan of Operations within three months. The applications were disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 735
  
  Issues involved: Contempt of court for alleged disobedience of directions by State Administrative Tribunal members leading to remarks against the Tribunal's performance.
  
  Judgment Summary:
  
  Contempt Petition and Allegations: A Contempt Petition was filed alleging non-compliance by the State Administrative Tribunal with directions from the High Court regarding advancing a hearing and passing appropriate orders on a filed application.
  
  Unconditional Apology and Explanation: The Tribunal members offered an unconditional apology and explained the alleged lapses, expressing willingness to follow the directions promptly upon resuming sittings after vacations.
  
  High Court's Acceptance and Remarks: The High Court accepted the apology but criticized the Tribunal members, former Judges of the High Court, for disrespecting its directions. The appeal sought to expunge these critical remarks.
  
  Legal Precedents and Court's Observations: The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that contempt jurisdiction should be judiciously exercised to uphold the judicial system's dignity. The Court highlighted the need for judicial grace and magnanimity in contempt cases.
  
  Judicial Decision: After reviewing the High Court's orders, the Supreme Court found justification for initiating contempt proceedings but deemed some remarks unnecessary. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining decorum and maturity, especially when accepting unconditional apologies. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and all critical remarks made by the High Court were expunged.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 734
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Contractual relationship between the assessee and Calcutta Dock Labour Board (CDLB).
  2. Applicability of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act to payments made to CDLB.
  3. Disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Contractual Relationship between Assessee and CDLB:
  The Assessing Officer (AO) challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order, which treated that there is no contractual relationship between the assessee and CDLB. The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's contention that CDLB acts as a conduit pipe between a 'registered employer' and 'registered workers,' and there is no direct contractual relationship between the assessee and CDLB. This position was supported by judgments from the jurisdictional High Court and the Apex Court, which stated that the Dock Labour Board operates as an agent of stevedores, who are the actual employers.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 194C:
  The AO contended that the provisions of Section 194C are applicable to the payments made to CDLB, as these payments are for the supply of labour. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that since there is no contractual relationship between the assessee and CDLB, Section 194C does not apply. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning was flawed. It was noted that even if there is no written contract, an oral contract suffices for invoking Section 194C. The Tribunal emphasized that payments made for the supply of labour are covered under Section 194C(1), regardless of the employer-workman relationship between the assessee and the workers supplied by CDLB.
  
  3. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia):
  The AO disallowed the entire payment of Rs 2,22,58,795 made to CDLB under Section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, but the Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s reasoning and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to address all other contentions raised by the assessee and to issue a speaking order in accordance with the law after giving a fair hearing to the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, and directed that the assessee be given the opportunity to present any legal and factual pleas. The observations made for the assessment year 2006-07 were deemed equally applicable to the assessment year 2007-08.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 733
  

  Computation of capital gains on the sale of a capital asset - description of the previous owner and the period of holding of the asset by the assessee - Benefit of indexed cost of inflation - determination of indexed cost of acquisition - HELD THAT:- As decided by ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST VERSUS CIT [2012 (2) TMI 259 - DELHI HIGH COURT] expression “held by the assessee” used in Explanation (iii) to Section 48 has to be understood in the context and harmoniously with other Sections. The cost of acquisition stipulated in Section 49 means the cost for which the previous owner had acquired the property. The term “held by the assessee” should be interpreted to include the period during which the property was held by the previous owner. CIT v. Manjula J.Shah [2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 732
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Addition on account of share application money.
  2. Addition on account of deposits and unsecured loans.
  3. Disallowance of interest paid for loans and advances.
  4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 244A of the Act.
  5. Addition on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act.
  6. Addition on account of unpaid bonus.
  
  Summary:
  
  I. ITA No.1253/A/04 - A.Y. 1993-94:
  
  1. Addition of Rs.16,49,000/- on account of share application money:
  - The CIT (A) confirmed the addition, stating that the parties who claimed to have lent the funds did not provide sufficient evidence of their income sources or reasons for investment, making the transactions non-credible and non-verifiable.
  
  2. Addition of Rs.35,35,000/- on account of deposits and unsecured loans:
  - The CIT (A) noted that despite opportunities, the assessee could not produce sufficient evidence for most creditors. The matter was remitted back to the AO to verify the details provided by the assessee and complete the enquiry.
  
  3. Disallowance of Rs.20,526/- for interest paid for loans and advances:
  - The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, reasoning that the genuineness of the deposits was not confirmed.
  
  4. Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B:
  - The ground was dismissed as charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B is mandatory and consequential.
  
  II. ITA No.1254/A/04 - A.Y. 1994-95:
  
  1. Addition of Rs.29,73,120/- on account of share application money:
  - The CIT (A) confirmed the addition, treating the amounts received as unexplained and unaccounted income u/s 68 of the Act. The issue was remitted back to the AO for verification of details and appropriate action.
  
  2. Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B:
  - The ground was dismissed as charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B is mandatory and consequential.
  
  III. ITA No.1255/A/04 - A.Y. 1996-97:
  
  1. Addition of Rs.47,73,776/- on account of unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act:
  - The CIT (A) confirmed the addition but directed the AO to extend relief if the transactions were verified as genuine. The issue was remitted back to the AO for further enquiry.
  
  2. Disallowance of Rs.1,50,218/- on account of interest paid on borrowing funds diverted for non-business purposes:
  - The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance, stating that no credible evidence was provided to substantiate the nexus between non-interest bearing deposits and advances.
  
  3. Addition of Rs.3,898/- being unpaid bonus:
  - The addition was deleted considering the smallness of the claim.
  
  4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 244A:
  - The ground was dismissed as charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, and 244A is mandatory and consequential.
  
  Conclusion:
  - Appeals for A.Ys 1993-94 and 1996-97 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
  - Appeal for A.Y. 1994-95 was allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 731
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Remission of loan made under One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme.
  2. Claim of interest not recorded in books.
  3. Addition on account of bad debts u/s 36(vii).
  4. Reduction of Written Down Value (WDV) of assets by principal amount of loan waived.
  5. Disallowance of stock write-off.
  6. Set off of brought forward losses.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Remission of Loan under OTS Scheme:
  The primary issue was whether the remission of loan under the OTS scheme by IDBI and State Bank of Hyderabad should be taxed u/s 28(iv) and 41(1) of the Act. The assessee argued that the loans were for acquiring capital assets and thus, the benefit from the settlement should not be taxable. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CIT, 261 ITR 501, and held that remission of a term loan for capital assets does not constitute business income and is not taxable u/s 28(iv) or 41(1). However, for working capital loans, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for verification of facts.
  
  2. Claim of Interest Not Recorded in Books:
  The assessee contended that interest charged by the bank but not recorded in the books should not be treated as income u/s 28(iv) or cessation of liability u/s 41(1). The Tribunal agreed, directing the AO to verify the facts and decide accordingly.
  
  3. Addition on Account of Bad Debts u/s 36(vii):
  The AO disallowed Rs. 2,00,000 on account of bad debts, stating that the assessee did not establish that the debts had become bad. The CIT(A) partly allowed the claim except for Rs. 2,00,000 related to tender deposits. The Tribunal found that these deposits were business-related and allowed the claim, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.
  
  4. Reduction of WDV of Assets by Principal Amount of Loan Waived:
  The AO reduced the WDV of assets by the principal amount of loan waived, invoking Explanation (10) to section 43(1). The CIT(A) disagreed, citing that the waiver is not equivalent to reimbursement or grant. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the waiver does not fall under Explanation (10) to section 43(1).
  
  5. Disallowance of Stock Write-Off:
  The AO disallowed the write-off of Rs. 1,93,28,886 for substandard finished goods. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off based on a technical report confirming the goods were unusable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the write-off was justified due to the unusable nature of the goods.
  
  6. Set Off of Brought Forward Losses:
  The AO did not allow the set-off of brought forward losses as the claim was omitted in the revised return. The CIT(A) held that the set-off is consequential and should be allowed if claimed in the original return. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to allow the set-off of brought forward losses.
  
  Conclusion:
  Both appeals by the assessee and revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal provided specific directions to the AO for further verification and decisions in accordance with the law.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 730
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Prolonged pendency of criminal cases due to stay orders by High Courts.
  2. Analysis of pending cases and their impact on the justice system.
  3. Recommendations for improving the judicial system and reducing delays.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Prolonged Pendency of Criminal Cases Due to Stay Orders by High Courts
  In these appeals, the Supreme Court is concerned with the prolonged pendency of criminal cases due to stay orders issued by the High Courts. The case in question involves interlocutory orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, where the investigation and trial were stayed for an extended period. The stay order dated 9.4.03 and several subsequent orders have been impugned in these appeals. The Supreme Court noted that the writ petition had been pending for six years as of the filing of the SLP.
  
  Issue 2: Analysis of Pending Cases and Their Impact on the Justice System
  The Supreme Court directed the Registrars General/Registrars of all High Courts to furnish reports on cases where proceedings have been stayed at various stages, including registration of FIR, investigation, framing of charges, and trial. The analysis revealed significant findings:
  - Murder cases accounted for 45% of all pending cases.
  - About 8% of cases had been pending for six years or more.
  - Four High Courts (Calcutta, Allahabad, Patna, and Orissa) accounted for 76.9% of all pendency.
  - The average pendency per case was around 7.4 years.
  - The most common stage for stay orders was at the charge-sheet stage, accounting for 32% of cases.
  
  Issue 3: Recommendations for Improving the Judicial System and Reducing Delays
  The Supreme Court issued several directions to address the issue of prolonged pendency:
  1. High Courts should dispose of cases where stay orders are issued within six months.
  2. The Law Commission, headed by a retired judge, was requested to undertake an inquiry and submit recommendations on creating additional courts and other measures to eliminate delays and reduce costs.
  3. Both the Central and State Governments were directed to assist the Law Commission in its inquiry.
  4. The Law Commission was requested to submit its report within six months.
  
  The Court emphasized that the right to access justice is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prolonged delays undermine public confidence in the justice system and pose a threat to the Rule of Law. The Court also highlighted the importance of qualitative access to justice, not just quantitative.
  
  The matter was scheduled to appear before the appropriate Bench for further consideration of the Law Commission's recommendations on 7th August 2012.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 729
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the appellant has any indirect share or monetary interest in her husband's contract with the Village Panchayat.
  2. Whether the appellant has incurred disqualification as a Panch member under Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Indirect Share or Monetary Interest in Husband's Contract
  The Supreme Court had to determine if the appellant had any indirect share or monetary interest in her husband's contract with the Village Panchayat of Raia. The appellant's husband won a bid for the collection of market fees, and the appellant was accused of having an indirect monetary interest in this contract. The Court referred to the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1860, specifically Articles 1098 and 1108, which govern the community of property between spouses in Goa. Under these provisions, each spouse is entitled to a one-half share of the other's income and property. Additionally, Section 5A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, supports this apportionment of income between spouses. The Court concluded that the appellant, by operation of law, had an indirect share and monetary interest in her husband's contract with the Village Panchayat, as the profits from the contract would be equally apportioned between them.
  
  Issue 2: Disqualification under Section 10(f) of the 1994 Act
  Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, disqualifies a person from being a member of the Panchayat if they have directly or indirectly any share or monetary interest in any contract with the Panchayat. The Court emphasized that the purpose of this provision is to prevent conflicts between private interests and public duties. The Court held that the appellant's participation in the profits of her husband's contract constituted an "indirect monetary interest" in the contract, thereby attracting disqualification under Section 10(f). The Court dismissed the appellant's contention that mere relationship as husband and wife does not create the type of interest contemplated by Section 10(f), distinguishing the present case from the precedent set in Gulam Yasin Khan v. Sahebrao Yeshwantrao Walaskar.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellant had incurred disqualification under Section 10(f) of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and dismissed the civil appeal with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 728
  
  Issues involved:
  The denial of exemption to income u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04.
  
  Issue 1: Denial of exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act
  
  The assessee Trust, registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, sought exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) for conducting educational activities. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) rejected the initial application for exemption, leading to subsequent review applications also being declined. The Assessing Officer (AO) then denied the exemption for the relevant assessment years based on the CBDT's decision. The matter was brought before the ITAT, Mumbai, where it was directed that a decision should be made post the pending application before the CBDT. Similarly, for the assessment years 2002-03 & 2003-04, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCIT) refused to grant exemption, prompting a Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay. Given the pending Writ Petition and CBDT application, all appeals and Cross Objections were remitted to the AO for reconsideration post the High Court's decision.
  
  In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai addressed the core issue of denial of exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) and directed the matters to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer after the High Court of Bombay's decision on the pending Writ Petition. All appeals and Cross Objections were allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

12345........ 28