{"id":8228,"date":"2014-08-01T14:04:35","date_gmt":"2014-08-01T08:34:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?page_id=8228"},"modified":"2014-08-05T16:37:37","modified_gmt":"2014-08-05T11:07:37","slug":"digest-of-important-case-laws-april-2014","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-laws-april-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"Digest Of Important Case Laws &#8211; April 2014"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"clock\">\n<table border=\"0\">\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\"><strong>Digest of important case law &#8211; April 2014 (Compiled by KSA Legal &#038; AIFTP)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"264\" rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\">\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"><!--\ngoogle_ad_client = \"ca-pub-6440093791992877\";\n\/* DLCenter_336x280 *\/\ngoogle_ad_slot = \"7705834990\";\ngoogle_ad_width = 336;\ngoogle_ad_height = 280;\n\/\/-->\n<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"\nsrc=\"http:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/show_ads.js\">\n<\/script><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"271\" valign=\"top\">\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"><!--\ngoogle_ad_client = \"ca-pub-6440093791992877\";\n\/* DLCenter_336x280 *\/\ngoogle_ad_slot = \"7705834990\";\ngoogle_ad_width = 336;\ngoogle_ad_height = 280;\n\/\/-->\n<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"\nsrc=\"http:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/show_ads.js\">\n<\/script><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\"><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1310\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Monthly<\/strong> April 2014 Digest in pdf format <\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1311\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2014 to April 2014) in pdf format<\/a><\/a> <\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1187\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2013 to November 2013) in pdf format<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1087\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2012 to December 2012) in pdf format<\/a> <\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<div class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/digest-of-important-case-laws-march-2014\/\">Looking for the Previous Month&#8217;s digest? Click here.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\"><!--\ngoogle_ad_client = \"ca-pub-6440093791992877\";\n\/* DLCenter_728x90 *\/\ngoogle_ad_slot = \"3275635396\";\ngoogle_ad_width = 728;\ngoogle_ad_height = 90;\n\/\/-->\n<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\"\nsrc=\"http:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/show_ads.js\">\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div class=\"journal\">\n<p><strong>Journals Referred <\/strong>: BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib),  Income Tax Review, SOT, Taxman, Taxation, TLR, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ,  www.itatonline.org\n <\/div>\n<div>\n<div style='float:left; margin-top:5px ; margin-left:5px ; margin-right:10px ; margin-bottom:5px ;'>\n<\/div>\n<p><strong>S.2(15):<\/strong><strong> Charitable purpose-Proviso to s. 2(15) which denies exemption to  a charitable institution carrying on commercial activities does not apply to  institutions carrying out relief to the poor, education or medical relief but  applies only to those carrying out &ldquo;advancement of any other object of general  public utility&rdquo;.<\/strong><br \/>\n  Though the assessee, carrying on  activities in the field of education, was held eligible for exemption in  earlier years, in AY 2009-10, the AO denied exemption on the ground that the  case was hit by the Proviso to s. 2(15) inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 which  provides that the &lsquo;advancement of any other object of general public utility&rsquo;  shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying on of (a) any  activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) any activity of  rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for cess  or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or  application, or retention of the income from such activity. The AO&rsquo;s stand was  upheld by the CIT(A) though reversed by the Tribunal. On appeal by the  department to the High Court HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<p>(i) On  the issue as to whether the activities of the assessee are for &ldquo;education&rdquo;  &amp; &ldquo;charitable&rdquo; in nature, the sense in which the word &lsquo;education&rsquo; has been  used in s. 2(15) of the Act in the systematic instruction, schooling or  training given to the young is preparation for the work of life. It also  connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has  received. Though the word &ldquo;education&rdquo; is not used in a loose sense so as to  include acquisition of all sorts of knowledge, it should also not be  interpreted in a narrow or pedantic sense. It encompass systematic  dissemination of knowledge and training in specialized subjects. The changing  times and the ever widening horizons of knowledge may bring in changes in the  methodology of teaching and a shift of the better in the institutional setup.  Advancement of knowledge brings within its fold suitable methods of its  dissemination and though the primary method of sitting in a classroom may  remain ideal for most of the initial education, it may become necessary to have  a different outlook for further education. It is not necessary to nail down the  concept of education to a particular formula or to flow it only through a  defined channel. Its progress lies in the acceptance of new ideas and  development of appropriate means to reach them to recipients. On facts, activities  such as Continuing Education Diploma and Certificate Programme; Management  Development Programme; Public Talks and Seminars and Workshops and Conferences  etc constitute &ldquo;education&rdquo; so as to qualify as a &ldquo;charitable purpose&rdquo; u\/s  2(15);<\/p>\n<p>(ii) The  mere existence of profit will not disqualify an institution for exemption u\/s  10(22) if the sole purpose of its existence is not profit making but is  educational activities;<\/p>\n<p>(iii) On  the issue of the Proviso to s. 2(15), the same has been explained in&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/info\/index.php\/exemption-under-section-11-in-case-of-assessee-claiming-both-to-be-charitable-institutions-as-well-as-mutual-organisations\/\">Circular No.11\/2008 dated  19\/12\/2008<\/a>. From the  said Circular it appears that the newly inserted proviso to s. 2(15) of the Act  will apply to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of  general public utility i.e. fourth limb of definition of &lsquo;charitable purpose&rsquo;  contained in s. 2(15) and hence such entities will not be eligible for  exemption u\/s 11 or u\/s 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial  activities. The Proviso will not apply in respect of the first three limbs of  s. 2(15) i.e. relief to the poor; education or medical relief. Thus, where the  purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor; education or medical  relief, it will constitute &lsquo;charitable purpose&rsquo; even if it incidentally  involves the carrying on of the commercial activities.( Tax Appeal No. 707 of  2013m dt. 13\/06\/2014.) <\/p>\n<p>\n    <strong>DIT(E) .v. Ahmedabad  Management association (Guj) (HC) www.itatonline.org<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\n    <strong>S. 2(15): Charitable  purpose &ndash; Breeding of cattle &ndash; Incidental profit-Trust entitled to exemption.  [S.11, 12]<\/strong><br \/>\n  The main objectives of the  trust were to breed cattle and endeavour to improve the quality of the cows and  oxen in view of the need for good oxen as India is prominently an agricultural  country. All these were objects of general public utility and would squarely  fall under section 2(15) of the Act. Profit making was neither the aim nor  object of the trust. It was not the principal activity. Merely because while  carrying out the activities for the purpose of achieving the object of the  trust, certain incidental surpluses were generated, that would not render the  activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. The assessee was  entitled to exemption under section 11.(AY.2009-10)<br \/>\n  <strong>DIT (E) .v.  Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust (2014) 362 ITR 539 (Guj.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 2(22)(e): Deemed  dividend&ndash;Share application money&nbsp; cannot  be treated as loan or deposit-Not assessable as deemed dividend.<\/strong><br \/>\n  When the Tribunal gave a finding that the  amount received by the assessee-company was share application money, the sum  could not be treated as loan or deposit. Furthermore, share application money  was retained for some months and shares were allotted in following year.  Therefore, sec. 2(22)(e) was not applicable. (AY. 2008-2009)<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT .v. Alpex Exports P.  Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 297 (Delhi)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.2(47): Transfer-Capital gain-<\/strong><strong>Profit  on sale of property used for residence-If  an agreement to sell is entered into within the prescribed period, there is a  transfer of some rights in favour of the vendee. Fact that sale deed could not  be executed within the time limit owing to supervening problem is not a bar for  s. 54 exemption. [S.45,54]<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\n  Consequences of execution of the  agreement to sell are very clear and they are to the effect that the appellants  could not have sold the property to someone else. In practical life, there are  events when a person, even after executing an agreement to sell an immoveable  property in favour of one person, tries to sell the property to another. In our  opinion, such an act would not be in accordance with law because once an  agreement to sell is executed in favour of one person, the said person gets a  right to get the property transferred in his favour by filing a suit for  specific performance and therefore, without hesitation we can say that some  right, in respect of the said property, belonging to the appellants had been  extinguished and some right had been created in favour of the  vendee\/transferee, when the agreement to sell had been executed. A right in  respect of the capital asset, viz. the property in question had been  transferred by the appellants in favour of the vendee\/transferee on 27.12.2002.  The sale deed could not be executed for the reason that the appellants had been  prevented from dealing with the residential house by an order of a competent  court, which they could not have violated. As held in&nbsp;Oxford University Press vs. CIT&nbsp;[(2001)  3 SCC 359] a purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act should be  given while considering a claim for exemption from tax and one can very well  interpret the provisions of Section 54 read with Section 2(47) of the Act, i.e.  definition of &ldquo;transfer&rdquo;, which would enable the appellants to get the benefit  under Section 54 of the Act.(AY.2005-06)<a name=\"_GoBack\" id=\"_GoBack\"><\/a><\/p>\n<p>\n  <strong>Sanjeev  Lal ETC.ETC.v.CIT(2014)105 DTR 305(SC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>\n  <strong>S.2(24):Income-Transfer of  development right (TDR)-Compensation paid to members-Amount cannot be taxed in  the hands of society.[S.2(14), 2(47)]<\/strong><br \/>\n  Assessee was a hosing society consisting  of 51 members. It had certain property. Developer has paid certain amount to  the society for granting consent to consume TDR purchased by developer from 3rd  party. Developer has also paid certain amount&nbsp;  of compensation to individual members of society. AO held that  compensation received by the society and members of the society also taxable in  the hands of society. On appeal Tribunal held that amount of compensation paid  by the developer to the members of the society cannot be taxed in the hands of  society as individual members have offered the income to tax in their  respective assessment. Society has received only Rs 2.51,000 for granting  consent to consume TDR purchased&nbsp; by  the&nbsp; developer from third party. The  Society continued to be the owner of the land and no change in ownership of  the&nbsp; land had taken place.Mere grant of  consent would not amount to transfer of land or any rights therein. Tribunal  deleted the addition. The revenue has filed an appeal to High Court which was  dismissed by Bombay High Court (ITA NO 2292 of 2011 dt. 27-12-2013.Revenue has  filed SLP before Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.(AY.1997-98)(S.L.P(C)  No. 34415 of 2015 dt 28-10-2013)<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT .v.RajRatan Palace  Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (2014) 362 ITR 1(St.)(SC)<\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Editorial: <\/strong>Refer Raj Ratan Co-operative Housing  Society Ltd. (2011)46 SOT 217 (URO)(Mum.)(Trib.) <\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 4:Charge of  Income-tax-Accrual-Excise credit- Credit of pro forma excise rebate.<\/strong><br \/>\n  Credit of pro forma excise rebate taken  into account was illusory and no real income had accrued. The assessee had  communicated its reasons why it resorted to such an illusory entry which  included that the company had sustained losses and in order to impress the  bankers and to please the shareholders the entry was passed into the profit and  loss account. The Tribunal on the facts was satisfied with the explanation.  This was a finding of fact which had not been challenged by the Revenue as  perverse nor was the finding of the Tribunal demonstrated to be erroneous  either in fact or in law. When the Tribunal was satisfied that the entry did  not represent any real income or any real receipt of money, there was no  question of its being taxable.<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT .v. Kusum Products Ltd.  (2014) 361 ITR 632 (Cal.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.6(1): Residence in  India&ndash;Non-resident-Individual&ndash;Period of stay-Resident and receipts taxable.<\/strong><br \/>\n  Assessee, an Indian citizen, employed  outside India returned to India in financial year 2010-11 after resigning  employment. His total stay in India in preceding four years was more than 365  days and total stay in India for financial year 2010-11 was 119 days. Held, he  is resident in FY 2010-11 and receipts taxable. (AY. 2011-12)<br \/>\n  <strong>SmitaAnand  (Mrs.) In re (2014) 362 ITR 38 (AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 9(1)(vi):Income deemed  to accrue or arise in India&ndash;Royalty-Use of equipment or use of process-Brand  width services or Telecom services- Taxable as Royalty0-DTAA-India-Singapore.  [Art. 12(3)(b), (4)]<\/strong><br \/>\n  Payment received by assessee for  providing international private leased circuitamounts to use of equipment or  use of process and was taxable as royalty. (AYs. 2002-2003, 2003-2004,  2007-2008, 2008-2009)<br \/>\n  <strong>Verizon Communications  Singapore Pte Ltd. .v. ITO (IT) (2014) 361 ITR 575 (Mad.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.9(1)(vi):Income deemed to  accrue or arise in India&ndash;Deduction of tax at source-Production and distribution  of television programmes&ndash;Shooting of film outside India-Services specially  characterized as work under section 194C&nbsp;  would not be taxable without a permanent establishment in India-Not  liable to deduct tax at source&nbsp; under S.  195.[S. 194C,195]<\/strong><br \/>\n  The applicant was a resident company  engaged in the business of producing and distributing television programs. For  shooting a program outside India, the applicant engaged U, company incorporated  in, and a tax resident of, Brazil, for providing line production services and  for providing a line producer, local crew for providing stunt services,  transport necessary for stunts for production of the show in Brazil. Under the  agreement, U was responsible for arranging for crew and support personnel as  may be requisitioned; props and other set production materials; safety,  security and transportation; and filming and other equipment as may be  requisitioned. The anchor and the participants of the show were engaged and paid  separately by the broadcaster and were not the responsibility of U. Held, the  services were specifically characterised as work for the purpose of s. 194C by  the Explanation to that section. Therefore, the payments made by the applicant  to the non-resident company specifically fell under the definition of work u\/s  194C of the Act and would not be taxable without a permanent establishment in  India. Consequently, the payment would not suffer withholding of tax u\/s 195 of  the Act.(AAR&nbsp; Nos. 1081 \/1082&nbsp; of 2011 dt 19-02-2014)<br \/>\n  <strong>Endemol India P. Ltd. In re  (No.4) (2014) 361 ITR 658 (AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 9(1)(vii): Income deemed  to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical  services&ndash;DTAA-India-Germany-Japan-USA-Netherland-Italy-Australia-China-France.  [S.195,Art. 7]<\/strong><br \/>\n  Payments received or receivable by  non-resident in connection with provision of services of technical and  professional personnel to an Indian group company is taxable in India in view  of Explanation 2 to sec. 9(1). <br \/>\n  The incomes received by the  applicants from the Indian company were taxable as business profits under  article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the  respective countries (except the applicant in the Cayman Islands with which  there was no Agreement, and the applicant in Italy), whose income was to be  taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Applicants were subject to  withholding&nbsp; of tax under section 195.<br \/>\n  <strong>Booz and Company  (Australia) P. Ltd. In re (2014) 362 ITR 134 (AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 10(14):Exempt  income&ndash;Conveyance expenses-No relevance or bearing on actual  expenditure-Taxable as salary-Tax is deductible at source.[S.15,17, 195, 201]<\/strong><br \/>\n  The conveyance allowance paid to defray  expenses connected with journeys from residence to office and back could not be  treated as an allowance paid for defraying expenses wholly, necessarily and  exclusively in the performance of the duty. Held, that the conveyance allowance  paid by the assessee without any relevance or bearing on the actual expenditure  incurred by the employees, could not come within the purview of s. 10(14) and  for that matter since the standard deduction granted u\/s 16(1) was meant to  take care of the expenses of an employee, incidental to his employment,  including the journeys from residence to office and back, the conveyance allowance  was clearly taxable under the head &quot;Salary&quot; and the assessee could  not have excluded the conveyance allowance paid, while computing the tax  deductible at source, from the salaries paid by it to its employees. (AY.  1995-96)<br \/>\n  <strong>SriramRefregeration Industries.v.  ITO (2014) 361 ITR 119 (AP)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.10(23C): Exempt  income&ndash;Educational institution-Property purchased in name of director of  educational institution but transferred subsequently to educational  institution-Entitled to exemption.[S. 11]<\/strong><br \/>\n  Property was purchased in the name of  director of educational institution but was transferred subsequently to the  educational institution. Held, there was no violation of provisions of s.  10(23C)(vi) or s. 11, and Assesseewas entitled to exemption.(AY.2004-05)<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT .v. Sunbeam English  School (2014) 361 ITR 325 (All.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 10(23C): Exempt  income-Maternity hospital&ndash;Medical attention-Entitled to exemption-Matter  remanded to AO.<\/strong><br \/>\n  The expression &quot;medical  attention&quot; cannot be read to be confined to medical treatment of persons  suffering from an illness or a mental disability alone. If that were the intent  of the Legislature, the sub-clause would have been framed differently  stipulating that the subsequent provisions for the reception and treatment of  persons during convalescence, rehabilitation or in regard to providing medical  attention would be of those suffering from an illness or mental disability.  Prevalence of mental disability is not governing requirement of entirety of  sub-clause (iiiae).Assessee being a maternity hospital was entitled to  exemption. (AY. 2009-10)<br \/>\n  <strong>Nehru  PrasutikaAspatalSamiti.v. CIT (2014) 361 ITR 68 (All.)(HC)<\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Editorial: <\/strong>Order of Tribunal in CIT v. Nehru  PrasutikaAspatalSamiti (2013) 26 ITR 376 (Agra)(Trib.) is reversed.<strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 10(23C): Exempt  income-Educational institution&ndash;Conducting examinations-Matter remanded.<\/strong><br \/>\n  One of the activities  undertaken by the assessee was to conduct examinations and several candidates  participated in the examinations. The results secured helped colleges select  students for further studies. Course material, syllabus, contents of papers,  question papers, etc., were part and parcel of the education system. Therefore,  the assessee could not be denied the character of &quot;other education  institution&quot; because it conducted examination or tests. In depth and  proper verification or examination was required to be made before it was held  or observed that the activities of the assessee were not genuinely charitable  or were not being undertaken in accordance with the provisions of section 10(23C)(vi).  This necessarily entailed and required the assessee&#8217;s co-operation and  furnishing of full details. General observations should not and cannot become  the basis of invoking the thirteenth proviso to section 10(23C)(vi).No finding  that assesse was carrying on activities which were not solely  educational-Matter remanded.(AYs.  2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008)<br \/>\n  <strong>All India Management  Association .v. <\/strong><strong>DGIT<\/strong><strong> (E) (2014) 362 ITR 451 (Delhi)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.10(23C): Exempt  income-Educational institution&ndash;Not conducting classes but affiliating schools,  prescribing syllabus and conducting examination is eligible exemption.<\/strong><br \/>\n  It is not mandatory to hold  classes for an institution to qualify and to be treated as an educational  institution. If the activity undertaken and engaged is educational, it is  sufficient. Held, that the assessee did not conduct classes nor was it directly  engaged in teaching students. The assessee affiliated schools, prescribed  syllabus and conducted examination for students. The assessee was authorised  and permitted to conduct the examinations and the results enabled students to  get admission at the graduate level. It was not disputed that the exams  conducted by the assessee were recognised. The assessee was an educational  institution within the meaning of section. 10(23C)(vi). (AYs. 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011) <br \/>\n  <strong>Council for the  Indian School Certificate Examinations .v. <\/strong><strong>DGIT<\/strong><strong>(E) (2014) 362  ITR 436 (Delhi)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 10A: Free trade zone&ndash;Set  off of losses&ndash;Export processing zone unit-Brought forward losses of non export  processing zone unit is not to be deduced or reduced from profit \/income of  export processing unit.[S.10B, 80A]<\/strong><br \/>\n  Brought forward losses of non-export  processing zone unit cannot be deducted or reduced from profit\/income of export  processing zone unit. (AYs.2002-2003, 2003-2004)<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT .v. TEI Technologies  Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 36 (Delhi)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 10A: Free trade  zone&ndash;Manufacture&ndash;Making of jewellery-Entitled to exemption.<\/strong><br \/>\n  Process of making jewellery amounts to  manufacture and assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10A. (AYs.2003-2004, 2005-2006)<strong> <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>CIT .v. Jayshree Gems and  Jewellery (2014) 362 ITR 272 (Delhi)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 10B: Hundred per cent  export&ndash;Manufacturing-Food items- Outsourcing-Only some follow up action was  done by assessee-Not entitled to exemption.<\/strong><br \/>\n  A part of manufacturing activity of the  assessee was outsourced. Raw material for preparation of snack items was not  procured and supplied by assessee. Only some follow up action taken by assessee  for packing and storing snacks was done by the assessee. Held, this did not  amount to manufacture or producing an article or thing. Hence, assesseewas not  entitled to exemption.(AY.2008-09)<br \/>\n  <strong>Deepkiran Foods P. Ltd. .v.  ACIT (2014) 361 ITR 437 (Guj.)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"90%\" valign=\"top\">The contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions herein is not ruled out. Neither the author nor itatonline.org and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without express written permission of itatonline.org. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Digest of important case law &#8211; April 2014 (Compiled by KSA Legal &#038; AIFTP) Download Monthly April 2014 Digest in pdf format Download Consolidated Digest (Jan 2014 to April 2014) in pdf format Download Consolidated Digest (Jan 2013 to November &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-laws-april-2014\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Digest Of Important Case Laws &#8211; April 2014<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-8228","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8228","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8228\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}