{"id":9375,"date":"2014-12-31T12:42:36","date_gmt":"2014-12-31T07:12:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?page_id=9375"},"modified":"2014-12-31T12:42:36","modified_gmt":"2014-12-31T07:12:36","slug":"digest-of-important-case-laws-august-2014","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-laws-august-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"Digest Of Important Case Laws &#8211; August 2014"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"clock\">\n<table border=\"0\">\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\"><strong>Digest of important case law &#8211; August 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=1362\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Monthly<\/strong> August 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=1360\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2014 to August 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=1357\" target=\"_blank\">Download <strong>Consolidated Digest<\/strong> (Jan 2013 to December 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\/digest-of-important-case-laws-july-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(22)(e) :<\/strong><strong> Deemed dividend-Advance  received in connection with construction work was held not to be taxedas  deemed&nbsp; dividend. <\/strong><br \/>\n  Where  the assessee, a builder and managing director of a company in which he was  holding 63 per cent shares, received a construction contract from said company,  in view of the fact that the assessee executed the contract in the normal cause  of his business as a builder, the advance received in connection with  construction work was held not to be taxable in the assessee&#8217;s hands as &#8216;deemed  dividend&#8217; under section 2(22)(e).<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT .v. <\/strong><strong>Madurai<\/strong><strong> Chettiyar Karthikeyan (2014)  223 Taxman 350 (<\/strong><strong>Mad.<\/strong><strong>)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed  dividend-Family settlement-Amount received in pursuant to family settlement  from a company in which he had substantial interest-Not deemed dividend.<\/strong><br \/>\n  Tribunal  held that if the family settlement had not taken place there was a peril for  the dissolution of the family owned companies for the sake of partition. In  order to prevent such a precarious situation the assets of the family owned  companies had to be realigned. Thus there was a commercial exigency for the  family owned companies to transfer some of its assets and liquid assets in  order to avoid extinction. Thus, as the Transactions were between the family  members and their wholly owned companies due to the family settlement the  provisions of section 2(22)( e)of the Act were not applicable.(ITA  No.1965(Mad\/2011\/2278 \/Mad\/ 2012 dt.17-07-2014) (AY. 2008-09)<br \/>\n  <strong>SKM<\/strong><strong> Shree Shivkumar .v. <\/strong><strong>ACIT<\/strong><strong> (2014) 65 SOT 232 \/ The Chamber&rsquo;s  Journal&ndash;October-P.27 (Chennai)(Trib.)<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 2(15):Charitable  purpose-Objects of general public utility-Ports&nbsp;Trust- Charitable as no  profit motive.<\/strong><br \/>\n  Assessee&nbsp;trust&nbsp;was  constituted under Major&nbsp;Ports&nbsp;Trusts&nbsp;Act,1963. Assessee filed an  application seeking registration under section 12A contending that activities  of&nbsp;port&nbsp;trust&nbsp;were for benefit of general public and were  covered under definition of charitable purpose under section 2(15).Commissioner  rejected assessee&#8217;s application holding that activities carried on by assessee  were in nature of commercial activities and not for charitable purpose.  Tribunal, however, granted registration to assessee&nbsp;trust. It was noted  that assessee&nbsp;trust&nbsp;was constituted for administration, control and  management of various&nbsp;port&nbsp;activities which was an activity of  general public utility. Further, fact that there was no profit making was  equally clear from provisions of Act of 1963 It was held that&nbsp; in view of aforesaid, Tribunal was justified  in granting registration to assessee&nbsp;trust.<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT<\/strong><strong> <\/strong><strong>.v.Kandla<\/strong><strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><strong>Port<\/strong><strong>&nbsp;<\/strong><strong>Trust (2014) 364 ITR 164 \/ 107 DTR 349 \/225 Taxman 145  (Guj)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 2(29A):<\/strong><strong> Long-term capital asset- Cancellation of original site and allotment of new  site &ndash;Period of holding to be considered from date of original site  allotment-Entitled to exemption as long term capital gains. [S.48, 54EC, 54F]<\/strong> <br \/>\n  The  assessee sold a property for consideration of Rs. 1.13 crore. Out of the  consideration, he invested an amount of Rs. 28 lakh and Rs. 22 lakh in REC  Bonds and National Highway Authority Bonds. He also purchased an apartment and  filed a return by offering the balance amount to tax under the head income from  long-term capital gains, after claiming exemption under sections 54EC and 54F.  The AO observed that the sale deed executed in favour of the assessee was on 27-2-2008  and he sold property on 29-5-2008,  within four months from the date of purchase and, therefore, it was short-term  capital gain. Therefore, he disallowed the exemption claimed and thereby  raised&nbsp; a demand on the assessee. The CIT  (A) upheld the order of the AO. On appeal, the Tribunal observed that the  assessee acquired a right to hold the property when the allotment was made for  first time on 25-8-1988. Due  to some disputes, he could not be conveyed a site without encumbrance and with  a clear title. As the sale had taken place beyond the three-year period,  capital gains accrued on such transfer constituted a long-term capital gain and  therefore, the assessee was also entitled to exemption as claimed. On an appeal  by revenue, the HC held that the original site was allotted to the assessee  prior to 36 months after payment of full value, merely because the said  allotment was cancelled, and a new site was allotted, in law, would make no  difference, admittedly when the original consideration paid was treated as a  consideration for the subsequent allotment. Capital gains arising on the sale  of new property would be long-term, and assessee was entitled to the benefit of  exemption under sections 54EC and 54F.<br \/>\n  <strong>CIT v . A. Suresh Rao (2014)  223 Taxman 228 (Karn.)(HC)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p><strong>S.2(47):Transfer-Capital  gains-Immovable property-Agreement to sell- Purchaser&nbsp; has sold two shops-Liable to capital  gain.[S.45]<\/strong> <br \/>\n  Assessees  were co-owners of a property .They entered into an agreement to sell said  property on 7-9-1991.Assessees claimed that since by aforesaid agreement, they  had not transferred possession, there was no transfer of capital asset within  the meaning of section 2(47).Assessing Officer rejected assessees&#8217; explanation  holding that execution of agreement to sell resulted in transfer of property  under section 2(47)(v).Tribunal found that assessees were full owners of  property and by entering into agreement to sell, they had transferred their  right of ownership in favour of purchasers. It was also undisputed that on  basis of said agreement, purchasers further sold two shops and carried out  development work on property in question. Tribunal thus confirmed order passed  by Assessing Officer. It was held that impugned order of Tribunal did not  require any interference.<br \/>\n  <strong>Chandra Prakash  Jain&nbsp; .v.&nbsp; <\/strong><strong>ACIT<\/strong><strong>(Inv.) Circle (2014)107 DTR 81 \/ 270 CTR  192 \/ 224 Taxman 290 (All)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.  2(47):Transfer-Capital gains-Power attorney- A Power of Attorney which does not  enable enjoyment of property does not result in a &quot;transfer&quot;. CBDT  Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 reads more into s. 2(47)(vi) than warranted-Not  liable to capital gains. [S.45, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.53A,Registration  Act, 1908]<\/strong><br \/>\n    <strong>The Court held that by a power of attorney <\/strong>(i) There is no transfer to  or enabling enjoyment of property in favour of the assessee in any manner and  therefore, sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act does not get  attracted. Clause 21 of the power of attorneyclearly reveals that no  consideration was received from the power agent for appointing him as power of  attorney. It also emphasised therein that the property right has not been  handed over to the power agent. We are, therefore, unable to accept the plea of  the Revenue that there was an element of transfer or enabling enjoyment in  favour of the assessee. <br \/>\n  We, therefore, now  proceed to analyze the meaning behind&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.incometaxindia.gov.in\/Communications\/Circular\/910110000000000364.htm\" target=\"_blank\">circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987<\/a>. The interpretation of the circular as put forward by the  Revenue, we are not in agreement. The provisions of sub-clause (vi) of Section  2(47) of the Income Tax Act make it clear that the transaction, which has the  effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of immovable property alone  would come within the ambit of transfer. The circular reads something more into  the provision. We are not inclined to accept such an interpretation. The  circular also states that the legal ownership would continue with the  transferor; but the property rights if transferred by way of power of attorney  would come within the ambit of sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income  Tax Act. Assuming we accept the intention behind the circular, then there  should be an element of transfer or enabling enjoyment of property right as  stated in paragraph 11.2 of the circular by the power of attorney holder.<br \/>\n  (iii) We find no  such recital in the power of attorney as extracted by the Tribunal and referred  to by us. On the contrary, the terms of the power of attorney clearly show that  property rights has not been transferred to the power of attorney holder and  there is also no provision for enabling enjoyment. It is not the case of the  Department that the power of attorney is sham. If they accept the power of  attorney is valid, then the plea of capital gains at the hands of the assessee  has no legs to stand.( TC ( Appeal ) No. 840 of 2014. dt. 3.11.2014.) <br \/>\n  <strong>CIT.v. C. Sugumaran (Mad) ( HC );www.itatonline.org<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 2(47):Transfer-Capital gains-Power of attorney-Possession was handed  over- Execution of a Power of Attorney in favour of the builder constitutes  part performance u\/s 53A of Transfer of Property Act ,hence liable to capital  gains. [S. 11,45,&nbsp; Transfer of Property  Act, 1953 , S.53A]<\/strong><br \/>\n  (i) On a reading of  the above provision itself, it is clear that possession of the property has  been handed over to the builder immediately on receipt of the first installment  of the payment from the builder. As per clause (3), the total consideration is  mentioned as Rs.8,83,50,400\/- and Rs.3,00,00,000\/- was to be paid as advance on  the date of the agreement. The balance amounts were to be paid in instalments.  These provisions categorically indicate the existence of an agreement by which  the substantial portion of sale consideration is paid and possession of the  property is handed over to the builder.<br \/>\n  (ii) It is argued  on behalf of the respondent that this is not a sale agreement at all. It is an  agreement between owner of the land and the builder. It is argued that Clause  (1) itself would show that if the project is not viable the property has to be  returned back and the assessee will return all the money till then received.  That apart, when a power of attorney is executed, the factum of sale arises  only when the property is sold by the builder in favour of third parties. Only  at that stage, that is when the sale deeds are executed, transfer as defined  under Section 2(47) takes place.<br \/>\n  (iii) On going  through the materials on record and the documents made available, we do not  think that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the question on hand. When  transfer is defined under the Income Tax Act and it includes a transaction  involving possession to be handed over in part performance of a contract in the  nature referred to in Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, it amounts to  transfer. Section 53A clearly explains the concept of part performance of a  contract of sale of immovable property. If a buyer is put in possession of a  property in part performance of the obligations under the agreement on the  buyer paying a substantial portion of the sale consideration, the contract of  sale is treated to be in part performance. Perusal of the agreement in the case  clearly indicates such a contract of part performance. The assessee cannot take  a contention that the builder is not the buyer. In fact, the terms and  conditions of the agreement clearly indicates that the intention of the parties  is to sell the property as such to the buyer, or their nominees and a power of  attorney is given to enable the buyer to sell the undivided share of land in  favour of purchasers of apartments to be constructed by the buyer of the land.  The execution of the sale deed is deferred as at the time when the possession  of the property is transferred to the builder, there is no purchaser for the  property. In other words, the builder himself has crept into the shoes of the  purchaser of the property and the registered instruments were created  subsequently and the idea of keeping alive the agreement and execution of power  of attorney in favour of the builder is only for the purpose of avoiding  duplication of registered instruments and payment of stamp duty. In this case,  the assessee itself executes the sale deed after several years on the request  of the builder. Therefore, in principle, the actual transfer takes place  between the assessee and the builder and it is thereafter the builder transfers  possession to the purchaser of the apartments.<br \/>\n  (iv) In the said  circumstances, we are of the opinion, capital gains is to be computed at the  time when the transfer takes place which has to be during the assessment year  when a substantial portion of the amount was received by the assessee, that is  when Rs.3.81 crores was received by the assessee during the assessment year  2004-05. Hence the said question is to be answered in favour of the  department.( ITA No. 93 fo 2010. dt. 01.01.2014.) (AY.2004-05)<br \/>\n  <strong>Cochin Stock Exchanges Ltd..v. CIT(Ker.)(HC);www.itatonline.org<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S. 2(47)(v) : Transfer-Capital gains-Development rights-Mere execution of  a development agreement does not result in a &quot;transfer&quot; if the  approval of the <\/strong><strong>municipal corporation<strong>&nbsp;&nbsp; is delayed and the developer has  not started work-Complete control over&nbsp;  the property was not given and only license was given. [S.45]<\/strong><\/strong><br \/>\n  The assessee had received  advance amounts much earlier to the execution of development agreement,  probably on the strength of the MOU. The property was encumbered with tenancy  rights of many persons and the release of tenancy right was completed only in  January, 2005. Further, the approval from municipal corporation was also got  delayed and the plans were revised subsequent to AY 2000-01. The surrounding  circumstances show that the developer did not start the work of development in  the year relevant to AY 2001-02. As per the terms of development agreement, the  assessee has given only licence to enter into the property, meaning thereby the  possession was not given in the year relevant to AY 2001-02. In view of the  peculiar facts narrated above, the assessee has contended that the tax  authorities are not correct in holding that the transfer of property took place  in the year relevant to AY 2001-02. Held that the transfer of property did not  take place on the date of execution of development agreement and accordingly  the tax authorities are not justified in assessing the capital gain in AY  2001-02. The capital gain was rightly assessed in the assessment year 2004-05).  (ITA No. 3096\/Mum\/2012, dt. 14.11.2014.) (AY. 2001-2002)<br \/>\n  <strong>Dilip Annand Vazirani .v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.);www.itatonline.org <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.4 : Income chargeable to  tax- Notional income-Car parking space &ndash;Refundable deposit-Additions deleted by  the Tribunal was confirmed.<\/strong><br \/>\n  The assessee entered into an agreement for  the development of its property under which the developer was to construct for  the assessee, 150,000 sq.ft of area of cost &amp; 20% of the sale value subject  to the minimum of Rs 200 sq.ft of the balance constructed area on the land. The  High Court dismissed the appeal and held that in absence of any sale or  transfer of car parking areas to the assessee by the developer, no chargeable  income accrued to the assessee for being allowed to park the cars in open space  against refundable security deposit. Further developer having provided free of  cost air &ndash; conditioning facility to the assessee till property was transferred  to theassessee, no notional income could be added in the hands of the assessee  on that account. Further court also held that tax could be levied only on real  income and not on hypothetical income. The order of Tribunal deleting the  addition of Rs 35 lakhs was confirmed.(AY.2003-04) <strong><\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>CIT&nbsp; .v. Spencess &amp; Co. Ltd. (2014) 266  CTR&nbsp; 564(<\/strong><strong>Mad.<\/strong><strong>)(HC)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>S.4:Charge of Income-tax-<strong>Information  received by the AO that the assessee is a beneficiary in a  &quot;discretionary&quot; trust set up in <\/strong><\/strong><strong>Liechtenstein<\/strong><strong> can form the basis of  assessment of undisclosed income in the assessee&#8217;s hands. Argument that the  trust is &quot;discretionary&quot; and that the amount has not  &quot;accrued&quot; to him or that the documents are &quot;not  corroborated&quot; is not acceptable.[S.164]<\/strong><br \/>\n  The assessment was reopened  because a tax-evasion petition (TEP) has been received from CBDT that the  assessee is a beneficiary of Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA. In the  return of income the assessee neither offered any income with reference to the  trust nor disclosed any details to the effect that the appellant was a  beneficiary of the said trust. The AO, from the, summary of the trust account  in LTG Bank found credit balance of US $ 24,06,604 (Rs.11,60,99,390) was  credited to the said account. As the same was not reflected in the return of  income thus, the AO correctly presumed that income has escaped assessment. <br \/>\n  As regards the addition of  Rs.2,34,64,398 on account of alleged undisclosed income, the argument of the  assessee that the alleged trust was a discretionary trust and neither the  amount was accrued\/credited nor the name of the assessee appeared as  beneficiary of Ambrunova Trust is not acceptable because the ld. Special Counsel  brought to our notice certain documents evidencing that the names of all the  assessees were appearing as beneficiaries of the said trust. Liechtenstein joined India as important partner in fighting overseas tax abuse  and black money and shed its secrecy cloak and joined the league of a host of  other countries for automatic exchange of information and mutual assistance in  tax matters. Thus, became 62nd signatory to a worldwide convention, accepted by  almost by all economic super powers and formulated by Paris based Organization  for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international policy  advisory body which formulates global tax standard to fight tax evasion and  concealment of illicit funds. Switzerland joined the same convention in October, 2013. The ld.  Spl. Counsel showed the bench a confidential list containing the names of the  present assessee as trustee\/beneficiaries of the trust. It was requested that  since the investigation is in progress, therefore, at this stage it will hamper  the investigation if the document is made public as the same list is containing  the names of other beneficiaries also. On going through the bank summary in  respect of Ambrunova&rsquo;s trust account in LTG Bank Liechtenstein, we find that there is a credit balance of USD  24,06,605 (equivalent to Rs.11,60,99,390\/-).<br \/>\n  The contention of the assessee  that such documents were not provided to him is also incorrect. The assertion  that the information was unvouched and not corroborated with any evidence is  also not accepted because the said documents were received officially by the  Government pursuant to an investigation made by permanent subcommittee on  investigation of United States Senate. Liechtenstein jurisdiction qualifies as  an off shore financial center due to a very modest tax regime, high standard of  secrecy laws and further foreign investors had the opportunity to establish  companies or trust with &ldquo;HOST trust reg.&rdquo; in the principality of Liechtenstein to  enjoy the advantages of off-shore financial center. As per the report Indian  Investigating Agencies came across a number of cases where individual or  entities from India were detected using banking channels of Liechtenstein to  hide their illegal income or stash funds and it was only possible when India  became signatory to a world-wide convention formulated by OECD an international  policy advisory body which formulated global tax standards to fight tax evasion  and concealment of illicit funds. It also provided option to undertake  automatic exchange of information. It is a common knowledge that discretionary  trusts are created for the benefit of particular persons and those persons need  not necessarily control the affairs of the trust. Still the fact remains that  they are the sole beneficiaries of the trust. Thus totality of facts clearly  indicate that the deposit made in the bank account of the trust represents  unaccounted income of the assessee, as the same was not disclosed by the these  assessees in their respective returns in India, consequently, the addition was  rightly made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). ( ITA No. 3544\/Mum\/2011,  dt.31.10.2014. ) (AY. 2002-03),&nbsp; <br \/>\n  <strong>Mohan Manoj Dhupelia .v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.);www.itatonline.org<\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Ambrish Mannoj Dhupalia .v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.);www.itatonline.org<\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Bhavya Mannoj Dhupalia(Ms.)  .v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.);www.itatonline.org<\/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; August 2014 (Compiled by KSA Legal &#038; AIFTP) Download Monthly August 2014 Digest in pdf format Download Consolidated Digest (Jan 2014 to August 2014) in pdf format Download Consolidated Digest (Jan 2013 to December &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/digest-of-important-case-laws-august-2014\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Digest Of Important Case Laws &#8211; August 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-9375","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9375","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=9375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}