The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
AG vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav (Supreme Court)
Law Commission and the Bar Council of India should consider whether Advocates should be tested for fitness and competence to argue matters
The interest of justice may suffer if the counsel conducting the trial is physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability. The interest of the society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise. Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant Rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity, to avoid grievance that an Advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India
CIT vs. Kapil Nagpal (Delhi High Court)
S. 54: To constitute purchase of new house, a registered sale deed is not necessary. Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of evidence
For the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the IT Act, it is not necessary that the Assessee should become the owner of the property. Section 54 of the said Act speaks of purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property may have different connotation in different statutes. It is wrong to hold that for the purpose of applicability of Section 54, registration of document is imperative
Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
S. 10A/ 10B: If Tribunal upholds Revenue's plea that assessee is not entitled to S. 10B, it must consider the assessee's alternate plea for s. 10A deduction even if such alternate plea has not been raised before the lower authorities
A respondent in an appeal, if he has not filed a cross-appeal, is deemed to be satisfied with the decision. He is, therefore, entitled to support the judgment of the first officer on any ground but he is not entitled to raise a ground which will work adversely to the appellant. In fact such a ground may be a totally new ground, if it is purely one of law, and does not necessitate the recording of any evidence, even though the nature of the objection may be such that it is not only a defence to the appeal itself but goes further and may affect the validity of the entire proceedings. But the entertainment of such a ground would be subject to the restriction that even if it is accepted, it should be given effect to only for the purpose of sustaining the order in appeal and dismissing the appeal and cannot be made use of, to disturb or to set aside, the order in favour of the appellant
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust vs. ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
Even post insertion of proviso to s. (15) but before 01.04.2016, s. 11 benefit cannot be denied to business activities carried by the trust in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement of any other object of general public utility. Trusts are entitled to carry out activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business etc as long as these activities are carried out in the course of actual carrying out of advancement of any other object of general public utility. On facts, activity of auctioning commercial plots for maximum revenue cannot be regarded as a profit-making exercise
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment