Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws Right to Information Act ,(22)of 2005 .
S. 8(1)(e): Exemption from disclosure -Legal advice given by Advocate General to State Government-Lawyer and client is fiduciary relationship – exempt from disclosure. [ Art. 165(2) ]
Secretary to Advocate General , Ernakulam v . State Information Commissioner AIR 2023 Kerala 72Advocate Act , 1961
S. 34: Power of High Courts to make rules – Imposition of dress code for advocates – National company law Tribunal – Only High Courts can frame rules for dress code for the appearance of advocates before courts and Tribunals, subordinate to it -Tribunals have no authority to issue any instructions determining the dress code for the appearance of advocates before it .[ Bar Council of India Rules ( 1975) , Chap .4 , Companies Act ( 18 of 2013) , S. 432 , National Company Law Tribunal Rules ( 2016) R. 16 (f) , 124 ]
R.Rajesh v.UOI AIR 2023 Madras 107S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Addition was deleted-Cancellation of penalty is valid. [Art. 136]
PCIT v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2023) 452 ITR 246 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (ITA No. 155 of 2019 dt 8-11-2021 (Raj)(HC) is affirmed.S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loss on account of sale of shares-Shares were undervalued-Revision is justified. [S. 263(3)]
S. Palaniappan v. CIT (2023) 452 ITR 91 (Mad.)(HC) S. Manickavasagam v. ITO (2023) 452 ITR 91 (Mad.) (HC) Editorial : S. Manickavasagam v. ITO (2010) 3 ITR 304 (Chennai)(Trib.), affirmed.S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share transaction-Assessing Officer applied his mind-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed-Appeal-High Court-Condonation of delay-Administrative reasons-The Principal Commissioner had casually termed the delay of 109 days as a delay of only of “few days” which indicated the lack of seriousness on the part of the Department in adhering to the timeline stipulated under the Act. Delay of 109 days was not condoned-Monetary limits-Includes appeal against revision order-Appeal is not maintainable [S. 260A]
PCIT v. Pushp Steel and Mining Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 452 ITR 66 / 291 Taxman 586 (Delhi)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Operating loss-Assessing Officer applying mind and accepting operating loss-Possible view-Revision is not justified. [S. 28(i), 37(1)]
PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 452 ITR 242 / 291 Taxman 446 (SC) Editorial: Decision in PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1010 of 2017 dt. 15-10-2019 (Bom)(HC), affirmed.S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Duties-Search and Seizure-Block assessment-Failure to furnish all material in Department’s possession-Direction issued to CIT(A) to furnish to assessee except documents relied upon. [S. 132, 153A, 246A, Art. 226]
Deepak Talwar v. Dy. CIT (2023) 452 ITR 61 (Delhi)(HC)S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Stay-Payment of 20 Per Cent. of sum assessed-Best judgement assessment-High pitched assessment-Coercive proceedings to be kept in abeyance. [S. 144, 250, Art. 226]
Radhakrishnan Nair Madhavan Nair v. PCIT (2023) 452 ITR 104 (Ker.)(HC)S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Refund-Department cannot demand tax from assessee and set off demand against refund of any other assessment year. [S. 194, 237]
Sanjay Sudan v. ACIT (2023) 452 ITR 107 / 331 CTR 797 / 224 DTR 9/ 292 Taxman 138 (Delhi)(HC)S. 200 : Deduction at source-Duty of person deducting tax-Intimation of demand-Not responding to notice-Garnishee notice to bank-Alternative remedy-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 201(IA), 221, 226(3), 246A, Art. 226]
Construction Engineers v. UOI (2023) 452 ITR 33 / 331 CTR 788/ 223 DTR 435 (J&K&L)(HC)