Companies Act , 2013 .
S. 230 : Composite scheme of arrangement – Demerger – Revenue objected on the ground that the scheme was a tool to avoid and evade taxes – NCLT and NCLAT clarified that Revenue was entitled to take out appropriate proceedings for recovery of any tax statutorily due from the transferor or transferee company or any other liable person – Order of NCLT and NCALT could not interfered with [ S. 231 , 232 ]
Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 3: Benami Transactions — Notice in respect of transactions entered into prior to amendment in 2016 – Amendment to have effect only prospectively — Notice was quashed[ Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, S 53 ]
Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 3: Benami Property Transactions – Act not retrospective in operation — Not applicable to transactions entered into prior to coming into force of the Act ie. 25-10-2016. [S.2(9)(A)(b), 3(2), 5, Art .20(1) , Art, 226 ]
Civil Procedure Code , 1908,
S.96 : Appeal from original decree – Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties -First appeal is a valuable right – Appellate authority is required to address itself to all issues and decide the appeal assigning valid reasons. [ITAct , S. 250, 251 ]
Civil Procedure Code , 1908.
Order III Recognised agents and pleaders -Appearances Advocates – Concession by Counsel – Concession by counsel contrary to law – Not binding on parties [Advocates Act, 1961 , S . 2(a) ]
Constitution of India
Art:16 : Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment – Service matters – Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State – Pay Scale – Equal pay – Minimum wages – Casual workers for his employment under administrative control of PCIT as peon/watchman from 2013- Entitled to be paid minimum wages paid to salary equal to such daily wages paid to casual workers who were engaged prior to 2013 by department.[ Art , 14, 16(1) 39(d), 226 ]
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988,
S.3: Prohibition of benami transactions — Change of law — Rule against retrospectivity —Amendments brought in 2016 introducing expanded definition of “Benami Property” to include proceeds from property held benami, element of Mens Rea and punitive forfeiture in Rem — Amendments brought in 2016 not merely procedural but substantive to have effect only prospectively — Prosecution or confiscation proceedings under amended provisions for transactions entered into prior to coming into force of 2016 amendment act not sustainable – Legislative powers — Validity of provision — Doctrine of manifest arbitrariness- The court left the question of the constitutionality of independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on other grounds, open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings . [ S. 2, 3, 4, 5, 24, 27(3), 27(5), 53, 54, 54A, 67 Art , 14, 20(1) ]
Harassment by Department – Unnecessary SLP – Respondent suffering from Cancer – Cost of Rs 1,00,000 was imposed on the Officer to be recovered from his salary .
Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988
S. 49 : Appeal – High Court – Memorandum of appeal – Substantial question of law – No substantial question of law had been raised even before Supreme Court, Special Leave Petition against High Court’s judgment was to be dismissed [ ITACT, S. 260A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , S.100 ]
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 .
S. 49 : Appeal – High Court – Second appeal – Substantial question of law – Order passed without framing substantial question of law- Order of High Court quashed and set aside . [ ITACT, S. 260A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , S.100 ]