Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards taxability of gains said to arise on amalgamation, where shares of the amalgamating company held by the assessees as stock-in-trade, stand substituted by shares of the amalgamated company; whether of itself, constitutes a realisation giving rise to taxable business income u/s.28, Income Tax Act, 1961 and if so, the conditions under which such accrual or receipt can be said to arise in the commercial sense, or whether the incidence of taxation arises only upon the subsequent sale of the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Company Law Board-CLB, being a quasi-judicial body, could be said to have the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s.58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013; that even if s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, per say, could not be applied to the principles underlying s.5 of the 1963 Act be made applicable to an appeal u/s.58(3) of the 2013 Act, instituted before the CLB; and that whether s.433 of the 2013 Act, which was brought into force on 01.06.2016 in order to empower the NCLT and NCLAT respectively, to apply the provisions of
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the accused added during trial u/s.319 CrPC, entitled to bail. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty – FIR registered against nine accused persons, persons, whereas the closure report filed as regards the remaining six co-accused – On basis of the oral evidence of the eye-witnesses, application u/s.319 filed by the first informant before the trial court seeking that the six co-accused dropped by the police to be added and
Issue for Consideration Whether the MM Plant unit set up by Indo Flogates could be termed as a new industrial unit in accordance with the terms of industrial policy of 1989; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the affirmative then, whether the respondents were justified in rejecting subsidy and DG Set subsidy respectively for the MM Plant unit on the ground that both Indo Flogates and the appellant company had already exhausted the overall subsidy limit under the previous industrial policies; whether the respondents are estopped from refusing to disburse the capital
Issue for Consideration Whether the subject goods in question should be classified as ‘parts’ of machines or mechanical appliances of Chapter 84 under CTI 84369900 or as aluminium structures of Chapter 76 under CTI 76109010. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Customs Tariff Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the aluminium shelves imported by the respondent should be classified under Customs Tariff Item 84369900, as ‘parts’ of agricultural machinery, as opposed to Customs Tariff Item 76109010, as aluminium structures – The respondent has
Issue for Consideration Whether on facts, based on the four judicial orders of grant of bail per se and without anything more, the authorities were justified in removing the appellant-Judicial Officer from service. Headnotes† Judiciary – District judiciary – Departmental on the allegation that extraneous considerations actuated passing of bail orders – Mere wrong order or wrong exercise of discretion in grant of bail by itself without anything more, not a ground to initiate departmental proceedings against Judicial Officers – Complainant lodged
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent u/s.11, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6A) – Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – s.41 A&C Act application filed by the respondent seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in accordance with clause 33 of the arbitration agreement of the Leave and License Agreement, and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties – Appellant took objection that
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court by the impugned order was justified in holding that the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed at the request of the State to adjudicate dispute No.1 only; was the non-issuance of a notice u/s.21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the appellant its claim before the Arbitrator. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Four packages of Road Maintenance Contract were awarded to the appellant – Appellant quantified the amounts due and submitted the same for decision by the Executive Engineer – As per the
Issue for Consideration i) Whether the sole arbitrator could be said to have become “ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator” by virtue of sub-section (5) of s.12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; ii) whether the parties could be said to have waived (5) of s.12 of the Act, 1996, by way of their conduct, either expressed or implied; iii) whether the appellants could have raised an objection to the appointment of the sole arbitrator for the first time in an application u/s.34 of the Act, 1996. Headnotes† Arbitration and