transfer petition filed by the wife at the time of final hearing dismissed

'
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 1232 OF 2011


SANGEETA Petitioner(s)


VERSUS


RAJINDER KUMAR Respondent(s)

O R D E R
Heard learned counsel on either side.
We are informed that the matter FAO No.46-M of 2000 titled
"Sangeeta versus Rajinder Kumar Pasrija", pending before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, is at the stage of final
hearing and under such circumstances we are not inclined to
entertain prayer for its transfer.
The transfer petition is accordingly dismissed with a
request to the High Court to dispose of the matter within a period of
one month from the date of communication of copy of this order,
without granting undue adjournment to either of the parties.
Parties will also cooperate for its early disposal and will not seek
unnecessary adjournment.


....................J.
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]


....................J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.11 SECTION XVIA


S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL.) NO(s). 1232 OF 2011

SANGEETA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAJINDER KUMAR Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay and office report)

Date: 24/09/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA


For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kishor, Adv.
Mr. Sarvjit Pratap, Adv.
Mr. Param Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,A.O.R.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Adv.
Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anu Gupta,A.O.R.


UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

In terms of signed order, the transfer petition is
dismissed.


|(A.D. Sharma) | |(Renuka Sadana) |
|Court Master | |Court Master |


(Signed Order is placed on the file)

regarding application of section 271(1)(c) of the income tax act,1961

2012-ITS-1811-SC-Northland Dev. & Hotel Corporation -Vs- Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra* , On. SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 FacebookTwitter EmailPrint SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Northland Dev. & Hotel Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra* S.H. KAPADIA, CJ. AND MADAN B. LOKUR, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2134 OF 2007† SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Bottom line:- Where difference between loan amount, due and payable by assessee was on account of non inclusion of interest amount in loan amount by bank, no concealment was to be alleged against assessee for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) Preetesh Kapur, Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Prakhar Sharma, Ms. Anu Gupta and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma for the Appellant. R.P. Bhatt, Fuzail A. Ayyubi, Vikas Malhotra, Ms. Anil Katiyar and B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondent. ORDER Heard learned counsel on both sides. The civil appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. ORDER Heard learned counsel on both sides. In the present case, the assessee took loan from Citi Bank N.A. to buy a hotel [capital asset]. Default was committed in re-payment of loan. Suit was filed for recovery, which was settled by signing consent decree on 30th April, 1982. The consent decree recites that the borrowers acknowledge their liability to the plaintiff-Bank in the sum of Rs.42,45,477/-, being the outstanding amount in the loan account of the Bank as on 30th April, 1982. However, it appears that, in the Books of Accounts of the assessee, the outstanding amount repayable to the Bank was Rs.52,07,873/- as on 30th April, 1982. Consequently, the Department came to the conclusion that there was waiver by the Bank to the extent of approximately Rupees ten lakhs. This amount was sought to be taxed by the Department. We are not concerned with the taxability of the said sum of Rupees ten lakhs. The Department initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee. It is true that, in the Books of Accounts of the assessee, the outstanding amount, as on 30th April, 1982, was Rs.52,07,873/-, including interest. However, the decree in favour of the Bank was for Rs.42,45,477/- because that was the amount indicated as the outstanding amount due and payable by the assessee to the Bank in its Books of Account. It appears that the Bank has not calculated the interest over the years possibly for the reason that, in its Accounts, this amount was classified as 'NPA'. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable. Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs. Click here to see the comments (0) or add a new comment

Search