Income Tax Department not to appeal against the Bombay High Court order in the Vodafone transfer pricing case

In a decision aimed at avoiding "fruitless litigation"  and improving the investment sentiment by allaying investors' concerns on tax issues, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) on Wednesday took a decision not to challenge the judgment of the Bombay High Court that said that Vodafone was not liable to pay a tax demand of Rs. 3,200 crore in a transfer pricing case. 

  

The decision follows the advice given by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to the Income Tax Department not to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the 'Vodafone transfer pricing case'. 

“The decision to not appeal against the Bombay High Court ruling that was in favour of Vodafone sends out the message to global investors whose confidence in India was shaken in the past… Prime Minister Modi wants it to be known that his government will take decisions that will be fair, transparent and within four corners of the law,” said Union Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad after the meeting of the Cabinet. 

The Bombay High Court in its October 10, 2014 order had given relief to the UK-based mobile service provider by ruling that it is not liable to pay an income tax demand of Rs 3,200 crore in a case relating to transfer pricing.

Supreme Court passes an interim order directing search engines not to sponsor any advertisement violating the provisions of the Prohibition of advertisement relating to pre-natal determination of sex Act

Supreme Court on Wednesday, as an interim measure, directed search engines like Google India, Yahoo India and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt Ltd not to advertise or sponsor any advertisement which would violate Section 22 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994. The Court further asked them to withdraw any advertisements already put up on the search engines. 

The Court also directed the search engines to upload on their policy page and the terms of service page its order that they would not advertise or sponsor any advertisement which violated Section 22 of Prohibition of advertisement relating to pre-natal determination of sex (PC-PNDT) Act. "As an interim measure, it is directed, the respondents, namely, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft shall not advertise or sponsor any advertisement which would violate Section 22 of the PC-PNDT Act, 1994," a Bench comprising of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant said.

If any advertisement existed on any search engine, "the same shall be withdrawn forthwith by the respondents," it said. The order was passed after Google and Microsoft argued that they were not advertising anything which violated the PC-PNDT Act or any Indian law. They also said it was not clear from the government's affidavit the nature of information sought as it has only stated that the search engines should be asked to provide or submit details of measures adopted by them to block or filter keywords and sponsored links violative of PC-PNDT Act and amendments.

The Bench also accepted on record an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Centre which said the government could block or filter "the presentation of any kind of thing that relates to sex selection and eventual abortion, if the URL and the I.P. addresses are given along with other information by the respondents, regard being had to the key words, namely,“pre-natal diagnostic tests for selection of sex before or after conception, pre-natal conception test, pre-natal diagnostic, pre-natal foetoscopy for sex selection, pre-natal ultrasonography for sex selection, sex selection procedure, sex selection technique, sex selection test, sex selection administration, sex selection prescription, sex selection services, sex selection management, sex selection process, sex selection conduct, pre-natal image scanning for sex selection, pre-natal diagnostic procedure for sex selection, sex determination using scanner, sex determination using machines, sex determination using equipment, scientific sex determination and sex selection”

Therefore, the exact URL needs to be provided by the concerned agencies for blocking or filtering at the Internet Gateways,  said the Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre. 

The Apex court said matters relating to the total blocking of the items suggested by the government and providing the URL and IP addresses by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft would be taken up on February 11. 

Nithari serial killings case: Allahabad High Court commutes Surinder Koli's death penalty to life imprisonment

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday commuted Nithari serial killer Surinder Koli's death sentence to life imprisonment. 

Allahabad High Court

The order was passed by a Division Bench of the Court comprising of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PKS Baghel in a Public Interest Litigation filed by a NGO, the People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), challenging the death sentence awarded to Surendra Koli, the prime accused in the Nithari serial killings case.

Koli himself filed a petition before the Court challenging the death sentence on the same grounds as the ones raised in the PIL.

The Nithari killings pertain to the horrific discovery in December 2009 of body parts in a drain behind the bungalow of businessman MS Pandher, whose servant Koli was.

The remains were of the 19 young women and children from Nithari village allegedly raped and killed by Koli in the Pandher bungalow. The Nithari killings came to light in December 2006 when several families in Nithari village, close to Pandher's house in Noida, complained to the police about their children, especially minor girls, going missing. 

 

Koli, who worked as the domestic servant of the Noida-based businessman Moninder Singh Pandher, was awarded death sentence for the murder of a 14-year-old girl, Rimpa Haldar. 

Both were awarded death sentence in the murder case but Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court. Pandher was later released on bail. Koli's death sentence was upheld by the Allahabad High Court and later, the Supreme Court. 

His mercy petition was rejected by the President of India. After that, the trial court had issued a death warrant on September 2 last year fixing the date of execution as September 12. But his hanging was stayed in the last minute by the Apex Court which decided to hear his right to recall the death sentence in an open court. 

The PIL was filed by PUDR on October 31 last year, three days after the Supreme Court rejected Koli's petition to recall the death sentence awarded to him by a special CBI court in February 2009. 

Rejection of the recall application had cleared the docks for execution of the death sentence, when the same was stayed by the High Court on October 31 as it decided to admit and hear the PILon merits. 

The PUDR had approached the Allahabad High Court with the plea that Koli deserved mercy on humanitarian grounds as he had to go through "mental torment" for more than five years when he languished in jail awaiting verdicts in his appeals and mercy petitions. 

In the PIL, PUDR contended that the period elapsed in the disposal of Koli's mercy petition was "3 years and 3 months" and, as such, execution of the death penalty would be violative of the Right to Life granted in Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Allahabad High Court accepted the contentions of the NGO as well as Surinder Koli and commuted Koli’s death penalty to imprisonment for life.

Kerala High Court dismisses election petition challenging Jose K Mani's election as MP from Kottayam

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed an election petition filed by an independent candidate Noble Mathew backed by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) who unsuccessfully contested the Lok Sabha elections from Kottayam constituency of Kerala, challenging the election of his opponent Jose K Mani of the Kerala Congress (Mani) party from the said constituency. 

It was alleged by the petitioner that while attending election meetings in areas where opponents to high speed railway project had exhorted for boycotting the election, the Chief Minister had told the gatherings that the project has been dropped. Advertisements to this effect were also given, the petitioner had pointed out while alleging that is it is a corrupt practice. 

Further, the petitioner had alleged that the statements to influence the voters were made by the chief minister with the knowledge and support of Jose K Mani's main poll agent Thomas Chazhikkadan and agents Mons Joseph and Tomy Kallani.

Opposing this, Mr. Jose K Mani through his counsel contended that while it was possible to clearly know who the candidate's agent was, the petition refers to more than one agent. Moreover, the petition fails to say that the chief minister made the statement on the influence or enticement of the candidate, the counsel argued.

 

Jose K Mani, MP from Kottayam constituency

Justice B Kemal Pasha dismissing the election petition filed by Noble Mathew held that the allegation raised against four persons, including the Chief Minister to the effect that they acted as agents of Jose K Mani is unclear. 

The Court held that the petitioner has not been able to produce documents to substantiate that the Chief Minister's statement was made due to the influence exerted by the candidate or his agent. 

Further, the argument that the statement was made with the knowledge of more than one agent cannot be accepted as it is not legally permissible to have more than one agent, the Court said. 

“When there cannot be more than one election agent at the election, it cannot be said that one of the election agents has committed corrupt practice. The submission on the alleged corrupt practice is vague and not specific. Hence the election petition is liable to be weeded out at the threshold itself as not maintainable in the eye of law,” observed Justice Kemal pasha while dismissing the election petition filed by Noble Mathew.