Constitution of India
Art. 224A: Appointment of retired judges at sittings of High Courts – Appointment of Ad hoc Judges – To clear backlog of cases pending in High Courts crossed 57 lakhs with ratio of vacancies of 40% – General guidelines to excise power in transparent manner .
Consumer Protection Act , 2019
S. 101 :Power of Central Government to make rules -Appointment of Judicial Members -Adjudicating Members – State Consumer Commission-District Consumer Forums- Tribunals-Appointment Process, Minimum experience- 20 years for appointment of President and 15 years for members of state Commission- Unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India- Advocate with 10 years of experience at the Bar eligible for appointment as Members in Tribunals- Rules-Struck down -[ Consumer Protection Rules, 2020, Rule 6 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), 6(9), Art , 14 ]
S. 132 : Search and seizure – Seizure of stock in trade – Seizure was held to be illegal – Directed to release the stock in trade and also directed to pay interest of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner [ S. 132 (4), 132B, Art , 226 ]
S. 276D : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to produce books of accounts-Documents-Three separate complaint were part of same transaction-Clubbing of complaints and joint trail was allowed. [S. 276C(1), 277, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.200]
S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Mere failure to pay income tax based on self assessment would not constitute offence-Proceedings was quashed. [S. 27C(2), 276CC, 278E]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Under-invoicing-Justice Shah Commission report-Notice based on reports of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)-Assessment was completed without proper inquiries-Revision is held to be justified, it was competent for Commissioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction and direct fresh assessment.
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Scientific research-100 per cent EOUs-Expenditure on R&D claimed under section 35(2AB) had no connection whatsoever with 100 per cent EOUs-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 10B, 35(2AB)]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business income or capital gains-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 28(i), 45]
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Method for determination of Berry ratio-Tribunal had not given its own reasons for upholding said order of TPO, its order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded. [S. 92C]
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Reassessment order was quashed on grounds being without jurisdiction-Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on merits and remanding the same to the Assessing Officer. [S. 35, 148, 260A]