Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws Notaries Act,1952 , S. 14
S.14:Reciprocal arrangements for recognition of notaries Acts done by foreign notaries – Presumption as to power of attorney- Document executed and authenticated before Notary Public of Singapore – Document cannot be judicially recognized. Winding up petition based on the power of Attorney executed before the Notary of Singapore is held to be not valid as per Indian law. [ Indian Evidence Act 1872, S.85 ]
Rei Agro Ltd & Ors. AIR 2015 Calcutta 54 (HC)S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – High court shall formulate question and may then pronounce judgment either by answering question in affirmative or negative – If High Court wishes to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, it may, for reasons to be recorded, formulate and hear such questions if it is satisfied that case involves such question. [ S. 4, , 28(ii)(a), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, S.100 ]
Shivraj Gupta v .CIT ( 2020) 425 ITR 420/ 272 Taxman 391/ 315 CTR 601/ 192 DTR 20 ( SC) www.itatonline .org Editorial : CIT v Shiv Raj Gupta (2014) 52 taxmann.com 425 / [2015] 372 ITR 337 / 273 CTR 353 (Delhi) (HC) (Delhi) (HC) reversed. Followed Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2011) (2011) 332 ITR 602 / 239 CTR 225 / 52 DTR 289 / 198 Taxman 78 / 225 Taxation 383 (SC) / 4 SCC 254.S.28(ii) (a): Business income – Compensation -Capital or revenue – Capital gains- Restrictive covenant as to non-competition – Held to be not taxable -.Prior to assessment year 2013-14 [ S. 2 (47) , 4, 28(va) ]
Shivraj Gupta v .CIT ( 2020) 425 ITR 420/ 272 Taxman 391/ 315 CTR 601/ 192 DTR 20 ( SC) www.itatonline .org Editorial : CIT v Shiv Raj Gupta (2014) 52 taxmann.com 425/ [2015] 372 ITR 337 / 273 CTR 353 (Delhi) (HC) reversed. Followed Guffic Chem (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2011) (2011) 332 ITR 602 / 239 CTR 225 / 52 DTR 289 / 198 Taxman 78 / 225 Taxation 383 (SC) / 4 SCC 254.S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Income attributable to permanent establishment -Project office in India cannot be construed as fixed place hence cannot be considered as permanent establishment- Deletion of addition by the High Court is affirmed – DTAA- India -Republic of Korea [ Art.5 (1), 7 ]
DIT (IT) v .Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd (2020)426 ITR 1 / 192 DTR 1/ 315 CTR 622 /272 Taxman 366 (SC ) www.itatonline.org Editorial: Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. DIT (IT) & Anr. (2014) 221 Taxman 315 / 265 CTR 109/98 DTR 89 (Uttarakhand)(HC), affirmedIndian Contract Act , 1872
S. 59 : Application of payment where debt to be discharged is indicated – Apportionment between interest and principal- Firstly in payment of interest and cost therfater payment of principal amount , unless a specific direction contained in the decree or contract . [ S 60 , 61 ]
Constitution of India, 1949
Art. 311 (2) :Dismissal or removal -Disciplinary enquiry – Documents furnishing foundation of charge sheet must be supplied- Principle of natural justice is violated – Dismissal was held to be not vald .
Transfer of property Act ,1882
S.106: Duration ofn certain lease – Servicing of Notice –Notce sent by registered poat recived back wth report not present -No presumption can be drawn unless something more is proved by cogenet evidence that it was refised. [ Code of Civil procedure ,1908 , Order v , General Clauses Act , 1897 , S 27, Indian Evidence Act ,1872 S.114(f) ]
Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr. AIR 2010 (NOC) 921 (P & H)Land Acquisition Act, 1894
S.5A:Hearing of objections- Natural justice – Objective Application of mind to the objections raised – Officer hearing objection should himself decide objections and give report- Successor decides the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would stand vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. [ S.5C ]
UOI v. Shiv Raj; AIR 2014 SC 2242Limitation Act ,1963
S.5: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases – Sufficient cause – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 3671 days – No reason to decline benefit merely due to delay in filing of appeal when in similar cases benefit was derived by similar concerns [ Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ,S. 18, 54]
K. Subbarayudu and Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (2017) 12 Supreme Court Cases 840S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Special Bench – Amendment in first proviso to s. 254(2A) by the Finance Act 2020,- whether directory or mandatory – Reference to special Bench .[ S.253 ]
Tata Education and Development Trust v .ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 500 (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline .org .