Legal News & Views

In JAGMOHAN BEHL vs STATE BANK OF INDORE, the Court heard an Appeal challenging an order passed by a Single Judge, whereby the suit seeking recovering of rent and mesne profits was directed to the transferred to the District Court, observing that it did not relate to a commercial dispute. The Single Judge had pointed out the fact that the suit did not seek to enforce any right under an agreement relating to immoveable property. The Division Bench of the Court, however, opined, “The use of expression “any other relief pertaining to immoveable property” would mean disputes relating to breach of agreement and damages payable on account of breach of agreement would be covered under sub-clause (vii) to clause (c) to Section 2 of the Act when it is arising out of agreement relating to immoveable property exclusively used in trade and commerce.”  Section 2(1) (c) (viii) includes “agreements relating to immoveable property used exclusively in trade or commerce” within the definiti...

In Maharaja Amrinder Singh vs. CWT, the appellant is the wealth tax assessee and is subjected to payment of Wealth Tax under the Act. The case pertains to the Assessment Years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. The issue involved in these three assessment years was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant (assessee) which gave rise to filing of the appeals before the High Court by the Revenue under Section 27-A of the Act questioning therein the legality and correctness of the orders of  the Tribunal.  The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, which has given rise to filing of these appeals by way of special leave before this Court by the assessee. The short question, which arose for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeals filed by the Revenue and thereby was justified in setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal o...

In M/s N. K. Jewellers vs. CIT, in the year 2000, one of the assessee’s employee was found in possession of Rs.30 lacs cash pursuant to search carried by Railway Police (‘GRP’) while returning by train. The cash was requisitioned and seized u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently,  block assessment proceeding was initiated against assessee u/s. 158BD treating the same as assessee’s concealed income. The assessees’ main contention was that the search proceedings initiated u/s 132 are invalid and that the block assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction since it cannot be based on a search conducted on a train by the police authorities.  The order was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court later.  The Supreme Court held that the plea that the search proceedings initiated u/s 132 are invalid and that the block assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction cannot be entertained because s. 132A provides that the 'reason to believe' or ...

In Income-tax Officer vs Shri. Ramakrishna M. J, Assessee, sold his property and purchased a new house within the prescribed time. The capital gain was also used for alteration / renovation on the purchased unit and to the construction of the third floor. Since he utilised the entire amount for construction of new house within the provisions of Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, assessee claimed the benefit of the provision. However, the claim was disallowed on the ground that the same would amount to construction of new unit in addition to the unit that the assessee has purchased. The AO was of the opinion that the exemption is only available for purchase of units within two years out of the sale proceeds from the date of transfer of the capital asset. On appeal, the first appellate authority allowed the contentions of the assessee. the department challenged the order before the Appellate Tribunal. The ITAT noted the fact that the assessee had spent an amount of Rs.32,50,000/- tow...

The Gujarat High Court in a landmark judgment stated that even though a woman has converted to another religion after marriage she is nevertheless entitled to inherit her father’s ancestral property as per the Hindu Succession Act. Justice JB Pardiwala, in a matter where a Hindu woman converted to Islam after marrying a Muslim man and renounced Hindu faith, does not disqualify her to inherit father’s property. As per the Hindu Succession Act, if a person has converted then it does not disqualify her from claiming her share in the ancestral property. The Act only disqualifies the descendants of the convert who are born to the convert after such conversion from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives. In the present matter, the state revenue authorities were of the opinion that since she has renounced her religion voluntary and hence does not have any right to share in father’s property. Nasimbanu Friozkhan Pathan from Vadodara renounced Hinduism and embraced Isla...

In significant judgement in Dr. Jasvir Singh Rana vs. II Dept., tge Delhi ITAT, in a significant ruling, held that assessee can avail the benefit of capital gain exemption if provisional possession of the new property was transferred within two years of disposal of the old property. The bench, while overruling the contentions of the department, ruled that when the provisional possession of the property is transferred to the assessee, benefit of section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to him merely on ground that the registration of the sale deed has not been made in his favour. Assessee sold his immovable property and jewellery for purachasing a new residential unit from M/s. Unitech Acacia Project Private Limited which was provisionally allotted to him. Assessee further deposited the remaining property in the capital gain account scheme and claimed u/s 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. However, the claim was rejected by the department on ground that the assesse...

In ICON HEALTH AND FITNES, INC vs SHERIFF USMAN AND ANR, The Court was hearing a suit filed by ICON Health and Fitness Inc, which is a company incorporated under the laws of the United States.  The subject matter of the suit was IHFI’s trademark ifit/ iFIT, which it uses for fitness devices such as wearable and software applications for fitness devices. The suit was filed against defendants who were offering a fitness related App under the name ifit on the App Store and on the Google Play Store. The defendants were also offering fitness bands for sale under the name IFIT on e-commerce portals such as www.amazon.in. The Court noted that the defendants were using a mark identical to that of the plaintiff for identical devices and software and for identical class of consumers. Further, the channels through which the defendants were offering their devices and software were also identical to those of the plaintiff. Justice Gupta, therefore, opined that the impugned mark had...