BEEREDDY DASARATHARAMI REDDY Vs V. MANJUNATH AND
ANOTHER (Supreme Court)
Sub-Whether Karta of a HUF has the power to sell immovable property belonging to the family without consent of all the coparceners of the family. The Supreme Court while dealing with the law on the subject held that Right of the Karta to execute agreement to sell or sale deed of a joint Hindu family property is settled and is beyond cavil vide several judgments of this Court including Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. Sridhar Sutar and Others(1996) 8 SCC 54(SC) wherein it has been held that a joint Hindu family is capable of acting through its Karta or adult member of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property.
Murthy & Ors Vs Saradambal & Ors (Supreme Court
of India)
Sub-When a will can be said to have
been made by a person when he was in sound and disposing state of mind? The
court relied on the case of Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and others [1977 1 SCC
369], where it was pointed out that when a will is allegedly shrouded in suspicion,
its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant.
What generally is an adversarial proceeding, becomes in such cases, a matter of
the Court’s conscience. Thereafter the court taking into account various facts
including the fact that the father in law was bedridden and paralytic could not
have written the will and allowed the appeal of the daughters.
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Vs Citibank NA
(Supreme Court)
Sub-Whether Interchange fees
received out of Merchant Discount Rate(MDR) by the issuing bank from accepting
bank in relation to credit card transactions carried on a customer is liable to
be taxed to service tax in the hands of the bank collecting such interchange
fees.
Income Tax Officer vs. V.Mohan (Supreme Court)
Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and
Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 nowhere provides
that it is “mandatory” to serve the convict or detenu with a primary notice
under that provision whilst initiating action against the relative of the
convict. Indubitably, if the illegally acquired property is held by a person in
his name and is also in possession thereof, being the relative of the convict
and who is also a person to whom the Act applies, there is no need to issue
notice to the convict or detenu much less primary notice
Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) vs. Reliance Telecom
Limited (Supreme Court)
A detailed order was passed by the
ITAT when it passed an order on 06.09.2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of
the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the
Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. If
the Assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was
erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available
to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such
was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee
withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its
earlier order dated 06.09.2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the
ITAT recalling its earlier order dated 06.09.2013 which has been passed in
exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act is beyond the scope and
ambit of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal conferred under Section 254 (2)
of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT dated 18.11.2016 recalling its
earlier order dated 06.09.2013 is unsustainable, which ought to have been set
aside by the High Court.
Milestone Brandcom Private Limited vs. NFAC (Bombay
High Court)
Bombay High Court passes strictures
against the Assessing Officer for ‘remarkable ineptitude’ and ‘gross abuse of
process’; imposes costs for not considering Assessee’s reply to Draft
Assessment Order and cutting & pasting the Draft Assessment Order in the
Final Assessment Order.
Mon Mohan Kohli v. ACIT & Anr WP(C) 6176 of 2021
dated October 30,2021 (Del)(HC)
S. 148: Reassessment –
Notice-Constitutional validity – The delegation authorized being only for the
purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be
exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute
book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f.
01.04.2021 – Reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act are
quashed-It is left open to the assessing authority to initiate – re-assessment
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended by the
Finance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law.
Tyroon Tea Company Limited & Anr Vs Union of India
& Ors (Calcutta High Court)
Sub-Constitutional validity and
legality of section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which mandates the
deduction of tax at source at the rate of 2% on cash withdrawals from, inter
alia, a banking company exceeding Rs.1 crore in a financial year.
De La Rue Security and Currency Print Ltd Vs
Commissioner of Domestic taxes (Kenya Tribunal)
Royalties paid to the UK entity were
not at arms length: Whether the price of the bank note paper purchased by the
Appellant from DLRI is an arm’s length price which includes the cost associated
with the know how to manufacture and design the bank note
No comments:
Post a Comment