S. 2(22)(e) : Dividend-Deemed dividend-Not a share holder of lender company–Loan not assessable as deemed dividend.
CIT v. T. Abdul Wahid and Co. (2020) 428 ITR 456 / 275 Taxman 101 / ( 2021 ) 199 DTR 515(Mad.)(HC)S. 2(22)(e) : Dividend-Deemed dividend-Not a share holder of lender company–Loan not assessable as deemed dividend.
CIT v. T. Abdul Wahid and Co. (2020) 428 ITR 456 / 275 Taxman 101 / ( 2021 ) 199 DTR 515(Mad.)(HC)Interpretation -Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Right of hearing – Cross -Examination – Matter remanded to first Appellate Authority .[IT Act , 1961 , S. 226 (3) ]
ICDS Ltd v. CIT ( 2020) 10 SCC 529 Editorial. Order in CIT v. ICDS Ltd , ITA No. 353 of 2001 dt 18 -9 2007 ( Kran) (HC) is reversed .Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing ( Regulation ) Act , 1963 ( 20 of 1964)
S. 2(1) (a): Agricultural produce – Sugar – Edible oil and Vanaspati – Agricultural produce .
Britannia Industries Ltd v. Bombay Agricultural produce Marketing Committee ( 2020)) 11 SCC 623Tribunal -Courts , Tribunal and Judiciary – Appointment and selection – Clarification of order dt 9-2 2018 in Kudrat Sandhu (2018) 4 SCC 346, pars 1 and 2 .
Kudrat Sandhu v.UOI ( 2020) 6 SCC 251 Kudrat Sandhu v.UOI ( 2020) 6 SCC 254Appellate Tribunals and Other Authorities ( Conditions of Service ) Bill , 2014 .
Tribunal -Courts , Tribunal and Judiciary – Appointments in certain Tribunals requiring immediate attention .
Madras Bar Association v .UOI ( 2020) 6 SCC 247Finance , Act , 2017
S. 184 : Merger of Tribunals and other Authorities and Conditions of Service of Chairpersons , Members etc – Excessive delegation – Whether Unconstitutional- Courts , Tribunals and Judiciary -Appointment process -Independence of Judiciary [ S.183 , Constitution of India , Art . 124, 214, 216, 226, 323-A ,323-B ]
Rojer Mathew v . South Indian Bank Ltd , Referred by its Chief Manager and Ors ( 2020) 6 SCC 1Constitution of India.
Art 141 : Law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts with in territory of India – Binding precedent -A decision , unaccompanied by reasons can never be said to be a law declared by the Supreme Court , though it will bind the parties inter se in drawing the curtain on the litigation .
UOI v. M.V.Mohan Nair ( 2020) 5 SCC 421Interpretation – Doctrine of precedents and stare decisis -Binding precedent .
Shah Faesal (Dr.) v. UOI ( 2020) 4 SCC 727 ( 5-Judge Bench )Interpretation- Precedent – Doctrine of merger- Non -Speaking order of Supreme Court refusing to special leave to appeal – Doctrine of merger would not apply . [ Constitution of India , Art . 141 ]
Zahedabi Abdul Razaque Shete and Ors v. Maharashtra State Board of Waqf Pan Chakki Aurangabad AIR 2020 Bom 100S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend – Loans and advances to subsidiary – Not established the business purposes – Addition as deemed dividend is held to be valid – Reassessment is also held to be valid [ S. 147 , 148 ]
Empire Holdings Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2019) 112 taxmann.com 319 ( Chennai) (Trib)