A charitable institution is entitled to set apart 25 per cent of the total income for charitable purposes even if it is not spent in the assessment year. It is an option permitted in the Income Tax Act but the limit should be observed. The Supreme Court stated that both the commissioner of appeals and the Andhra Pradesh High Court erred while allowing a larger percentage in the case, CIT vs G R Govindarajulu. The total income was Rs 99 lakh out of which Rs 47 lakh was spent on charity and Rs 32 lakh was set to be spent for charitable purposes in the following year. The assessee claimed that it was therefore entitled to have deduction of the entire amount and its tax liability was nil. The assessment officer did not agree stating that no option for the purpose was exercised before filing the returns and it was not done in a valid manner. Though the appellate authority and the high court accepted that contention, the Supreme Court pointed out that Rs 32 lakh was more than 25 per cent of the income and therefore the assessment should be recomputed. The authorities were ordered to do so.
College to compensate merit candidates
If candidates in the merit list are not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the professional college or state authorities, the court may grant compensation to them. But the students cannot claim admission, Supreme Court stated in its judgment, S Nihal Ahamed vs Dean. In this case, the results were published on September 23; the candidates went to the medical college the next day but were told to come after 26th. The college sent letters to them to appear for counselling on 24th; they were posted on 29th, which reached them a week later. They approached the college with the letter but were refused admission due to lapse of time. They moved the Madras High Court. It declined to order admission, but granted Rs 3 lakh each. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the high court order and followed its
March 2015 judgment in a case from Maharashtra in which all candidates who lost a year due to the negligence of the authorities were awarded Rs 20 lakh each. The court took the action because when the candidates moved the court, the state government did not file its reply for more than one year.
Industrial body snubbed in land case
The Supreme Court last week dismissed a petition moved by Maneswar Industrial Welfare Association as "misconceived and vexatious" and imposed a suspended compensation of Rs 1 lakh on it. The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Corporation had acquired land for allotting it to various units. The members of this association repeatedly approached the court stating that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had wrongly hiked the compensation rate for the land. The state corporation and industrial associations had moved review petitions and curative petitions which were dismissed by the court earlier. The latest attempt also failed as the Supreme Court stood by its original judgment upholding the higher rate of compensation passed in 2010.
Babus can't run regulatory body
The common practice of keeping vacancies of chairpersons in tribunals pending for long periods and allowing bureaucrats to act as their heads received another blow, this time from the Gujarat High Court. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission was topless for a long time and one technical member was presiding over it along with a former employee of the electricity board. This was challenged by Utility Users' Welfare Association. Allowing most of its prayers, the high court stated that since "the vacancy of chairperson was not filled up for a long time and a large number of litigants are waiting for adjudication, the state government is directed to undertake the process for making the appointment of chairperson at the earliest, but not later than three months." The court ruled that the powers exercised by the commission are equal to that of a civil court and so a person with judicial background must preside over it as far as possible. Otherwise, it may result in the exercise of "un-channelised and unguided option" made available to the state. Further, if the person to be appointed as chairperson is not having experience of judicial proceedings, "the commission may be comprising of all persons having knowledge of engineering, finance, commerce, economics or management. If such situation is created on account of the aforesaid interpretation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, the commission would be manned by persons having no experience whatsoever of the judicial proceedings, much less as that of the Civil Court."
ONGC 'tossing' casual workers
The Delhi High Court last week indicted public sector ONGC for indulging in unfair labour practices on five counts, like "tossing" its temporary and casual workers in different projects, without regularising them for about a decade. It asked the corporation to regularise them according to its 1962 standing orders. In this case, 24 workers alleged that the corporation had recruited labourers between 1984-86 for a Himachal project but after its completion, they were engaged in several others.
Though some of them were unsuccessful in their pleas before the Himachal High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, 24 who persisted were successful before the Delhi High Court.
Foreign award must be executed
The Bombay High Court last week allowed the petition of Italian firm Sideralba SPA seeking the execution of a foreign award in its favour against Mumbai firm Shree Precoated Steels Ltd. There was a series of disputes between the Italian firm, the Mumbai firm, its sister concern in UAE and insurer New India Assurance over dispatch of steel items, some of which were damaged while the ship with the consignment from Mumbai was damaged at Djibouti. The high court rejected the arguments of the Mumbai firm resisting the execution of the award stating that "the findings of facts rendered by the arbitral tribunal cannot be interfered with in this court and it cannot refuse to enforce the foreign award by adjudicating upon the disputes between the parties on merits… According to Swiss law applicable to the parties, the award has achieved finality." The judgment cited several Supreme Court judgments in respect of execution of foreign awards and concluded that enforcement could be refused under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act only if it is contrary to i) the fundamental policy of Indian law; (ii) the interest of India ; or (iii) justice or morality.
College to compensate merit candidates
If candidates in the merit list are not selected during a particular academic year due to the fault of the professional college or state authorities, the court may grant compensation to them. But the students cannot claim admission, Supreme Court stated in its judgment, S Nihal Ahamed vs Dean. In this case, the results were published on September 23; the candidates went to the medical college the next day but were told to come after 26th. The college sent letters to them to appear for counselling on 24th; they were posted on 29th, which reached them a week later. They approached the college with the letter but were refused admission due to lapse of time. They moved the Madras High Court. It declined to order admission, but granted Rs 3 lakh each. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the high court order and followed its
March 2015 judgment in a case from Maharashtra in which all candidates who lost a year due to the negligence of the authorities were awarded Rs 20 lakh each. The court took the action because when the candidates moved the court, the state government did not file its reply for more than one year.
More From This Section
Industrial body snubbed in land case
The Supreme Court last week dismissed a petition moved by Maneswar Industrial Welfare Association as "misconceived and vexatious" and imposed a suspended compensation of Rs 1 lakh on it. The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Corporation had acquired land for allotting it to various units. The members of this association repeatedly approached the court stating that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had wrongly hiked the compensation rate for the land. The state corporation and industrial associations had moved review petitions and curative petitions which were dismissed by the court earlier. The latest attempt also failed as the Supreme Court stood by its original judgment upholding the higher rate of compensation passed in 2010.
Babus can't run regulatory body
The common practice of keeping vacancies of chairpersons in tribunals pending for long periods and allowing bureaucrats to act as their heads received another blow, this time from the Gujarat High Court. The State Electricity Regulatory Commission was topless for a long time and one technical member was presiding over it along with a former employee of the electricity board. This was challenged by Utility Users' Welfare Association. Allowing most of its prayers, the high court stated that since "the vacancy of chairperson was not filled up for a long time and a large number of litigants are waiting for adjudication, the state government is directed to undertake the process for making the appointment of chairperson at the earliest, but not later than three months." The court ruled that the powers exercised by the commission are equal to that of a civil court and so a person with judicial background must preside over it as far as possible. Otherwise, it may result in the exercise of "un-channelised and unguided option" made available to the state. Further, if the person to be appointed as chairperson is not having experience of judicial proceedings, "the commission may be comprising of all persons having knowledge of engineering, finance, commerce, economics or management. If such situation is created on account of the aforesaid interpretation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, the commission would be manned by persons having no experience whatsoever of the judicial proceedings, much less as that of the Civil Court."
ONGC 'tossing' casual workers
The Delhi High Court last week indicted public sector ONGC for indulging in unfair labour practices on five counts, like "tossing" its temporary and casual workers in different projects, without regularising them for about a decade. It asked the corporation to regularise them according to its 1962 standing orders. In this case, 24 workers alleged that the corporation had recruited labourers between 1984-86 for a Himachal project but after its completion, they were engaged in several others.
Though some of them were unsuccessful in their pleas before the Himachal High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, 24 who persisted were successful before the Delhi High Court.
Foreign award must be executed
The Bombay High Court last week allowed the petition of Italian firm Sideralba SPA seeking the execution of a foreign award in its favour against Mumbai firm Shree Precoated Steels Ltd. There was a series of disputes between the Italian firm, the Mumbai firm, its sister concern in UAE and insurer New India Assurance over dispatch of steel items, some of which were damaged while the ship with the consignment from Mumbai was damaged at Djibouti. The high court rejected the arguments of the Mumbai firm resisting the execution of the award stating that "the findings of facts rendered by the arbitral tribunal cannot be interfered with in this court and it cannot refuse to enforce the foreign award by adjudicating upon the disputes between the parties on merits… According to Swiss law applicable to the parties, the award has achieved finality." The judgment cited several Supreme Court judgments in respect of execution of foreign awards and concluded that enforcement could be refused under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act only if it is contrary to i) the fundamental policy of Indian law; (ii) the interest of India ; or (iii) justice or morality.