Showing posts from July, 2017

whether the interest paid qualifies as penalty charges for late payment as per Article 11(6), whereby the exemption afforded by the said Article would stand excluded. If not, the exemption afforded by Article 11(1) would squarely apply and the interest paid by Ascendas to the assessee company in Netherlands owing to the sale of shares of VITP Ltd. would not be taxable in India.


I.T.T.A. NOS.55 OF 2014 and batch


The Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Hyderabad .. Appellant

M/s. Vanenberg Facilities BV  .. Respondent

 Counsel for the Appellants in                  : Ms. K.Mamata
  ITTA Nos.55 and 71 of 2014 and the      Choudary
  Respondents in WP No.41469 of 2015  

^Counsel for the Respondents in   Mr. Nishanth Thakkar
  ITTA Nos.55 and 71 of 2014 and the and Mr.  T.Bala Mohan Reddy Petitioner in WP No.41469 of 2015


>Head Note:    


1. [2007] 107 ITD 367 (Ahmedabad)
2. (2012) 6 SCC 613
3. ITA No.4672/Mum/2003 and batch dated 08.02.2012 of the
    Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench J, Mumbai.
4. [2008] 115 ITD 167 (Mumbai)
5. [2010] 122 ITD 216 (Mumbai)
6. [2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bombay)
7. [2011] 133 ITD 543 (Mumbai)
8. ITA Nos.692 and 693 of 2012 dated 22.08.2014
9. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (Delh…

The core lacuna in the case of the Prosecution lies in its failure to produce the seized silver and gold articles before the jurisdictional Magistrate and conduct Test Identification with either PW.3 or PW.4. Test Identification Parade was arranged for identification of the appellant by LW.1, PW.3 and PW.4. However, the report reveals that while LW.1 has failed to identify the appellant, PW.4 was absent. It is only PW.3, who is stated to have identified the appellant. It was suggested to PW.3 in his cross- examination that there is a tackle mark on the forehead of the appellant and that the Police have shown his photographs before the Test Identification Parade. Irrespective of the probative value of this suggestion, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be convicted solely based upon the identification by one witness as there is every likelihood of the witness indulging in chance identification as only 5 persons were paraded before him and such chance identification cannot be ruled out. If we carefully consider the contents of Ex.P.4, LW.1 spent long time with the assailants during the entire incident and for the reasons best known to the Prosecution, they have not cited him as a witness. Moreover, he, being the person who had the best chance of identifying the appellant, failed in this regard during the Test Identification Parade. Similarly, PW.4 has not even attended the Test Identification Parade. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is wholly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW.3 to connect the appellant to the offences with which he was charged.

The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Honble Ms. Justice J.Uma Devi

Criminal Appeal No.918 of 2010


Charagonda Thirupathi Appellant

#The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad Respondent  

!Counsel for the Appellant:  Mrs.A.Gayathri Reddy

^Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor (TS)



? Cases cited:

The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
The Honble Ms. Justice J.Uma Devi
Criminal Appeal No.918 of 2010
Date: 06.06.2017

The Court made the following:

Judgment: (Per the Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

        The sole accused in Sessions Case No.433 of 2009 on the
file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet,
filed this Criminal Appeal feeling aggrieved by his conviction
for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 394
IPC and sentence to undergo (i) Life Imprisonment for the
offence under Section 302 IPC, (ii) Rigorous Imprisonment …