Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Contempt

Delhi High Court has no jurisdiction to take up contempt proceedings arising out of Mumbai High Court judgment – Delhi High Court

Petitioner in the Contempt Petition alleges non-compliance of Order passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court. In case the petitioner feels that there is non-compliance of the Order passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the said Court. This Court has not specifically examined whether there is non-compliance of the order.

Income Tax

Income tax - Search - penalty - it is not concealment of income but undisclosed income in excess of one disclosed in block return required to be established for imposition of penalty under second proviso to Sec 158-BFA(2) - Assessee's appeal dismissed: ITAT

THE two most important and also frequently invoked penalty provisions in the Income Tax Act are Sec 271(1)(c) and Sec 158-BFA(2). The latter is invoked in search cases. In an interesting decision the Tribunal has distinguished the circumstances under which these two provisions can be invoked, preceding certain facts and situations.

Central Excise

SSI Exemption – Use of brand name – Non–declaration of use of brand name – Extended period invokable – High Court

In the instant case it may be that the mark Ram's belongs to the sister company of the respondent. However, the sister company was not eligible for exemption nor could the respondent knowing that the mark belongs to another use the same. This really cannot be said to be contentious. This was clearly a case of ‘suppression'.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements