Legal News & Views

In National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and Ors., a Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday guidelines on fixation of future prospects for deciding compensation in motor accident claims. The Bench was hearing a reference by a two Judge Bench to resolve the conflicting opinion between the three Judge Bench Judgments in Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another and Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh. The seminal controversy before the Court was, “where the deceased was self-employed or was a person on fixed salary without provision for annual increment, etc., what should be the addition as regards the future prospects”. The Bench observed that Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. According to the bench, the...

In Haryana State Roads and Vs. Development Corporation Ltd., vs The D.C.I.T., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], Chandigarh bench, has held that the appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal by pointing out the defects in its form without granting an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defects.  The bench comprising judicial member Ms. Diva Singh and Accountant member, Ms. Annapurna Gupta held so while hearing both parties contentions.  This appeal filed by the assessee has been preferred against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), relating to assessment year 2012-13. Dissatisfied by the order, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). however, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal by stating that it was defective since the appeal has not been filed in the prescribed format according to the Rule 45 of the Income Tax Rules. It said that the verification in the appeal memo was signed by un...

In Shri Arunkumar Nathan  Vs.  Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,  Bangalore bench of the ITAT, on Wednesday, observed that purchasing of two properties in different localities cannot be claim tax deductions under sec 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assesse sold his residential property and has purchased two apartments in two different localities, and he claimed tax deductions for both properties under sec 54 of the income tax act 1961. But the Asst. CIT denied the claim of the Assessee and observed that the benefit is available to one residential unit under the said provision. The Assessee argued that the order of the department is so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant is bad and the CIT erred in law and facts in holding that the amendment to Finance Act 2014 is clarificactory in nature even though the memorandum explaining the Finance Act 2014 clearly states that the amendment will apply in relation to AY 2015-2016 and subsequent asse...

The Supreme Court has interpreted the width and amplitude of inherent powers of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited vs Solar Semiconductor Power Company, and has held that the tariff fixed in terms of power purchase agreement (PPA) between the power producer and distributor cannot be altered invoking inherent powers. The separate but concurring judgments written by Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi examined the scope of powers of Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Electricity Act 2003. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/electricity-commission-no-inherent-power-alter-tariff-ppa-power-generator-distributor-sc-read-judgment/

In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III vs VASAVI PRATAP CHAND, a division bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the order of the ITAT that the value of land as declared and assessed under Section 7(4) of the Wealth Tax Act could not be adopted as market value of the asset as on 1.4.1981 for purposes of computing taxable gain under the Income Tax Act. A bench comprising of Justice S.Muralidhar and Justice Pradhiba M. Singh held so while considering bench of appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/value-declared-wealth-tax-return-cannot-taken-cost-acquisition-computing-capital-gain-income-delhi-hc/12534/

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in POST MASTER GENERAL Vs MANOJ KUMAR has held the Post Master General in Chandigarh and Lodhi Road in New Delhi guilty of deficiency in service for failing to deliver the application forms of two law graduates to the Delhi High Court Registrar in time, leading to the applicants losing precious chance of participating in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination. The state commission had held the post offices to be deficient in service as they failed to deliver the packets containing the application forms of the complainants for appearing in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination-2015, by or before 07.11.2015, the last date for submission of such applications. The state commission had held, “As per contents of Citizen Charter issued by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India, qua delivery of speed post, it is stated that from State Capital to State Capital speed post will r...

The Supreme Court, in International Asset Reconstruction Company Of India Ltd vs The Official Liquidator Of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd And Others, has held that the prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy (RDB) Act, 1993, for preferring an appeal against the order of the recovery officer cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, an appeal was preferred by the aggrieved against the order of recovery officer before the tribunal beyond the prescribed period of 30 days and the tribunal held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act not being applicable to proceedings under Section 30 of the Act, the delay beyond the prescribed period could not be condoned. The bench comprising Justice AM Sapre and Justice Navin Sinha observed that the definition of “application” under Section 2(b) of the Act was confined to Section 19 of the RDB Act only. Its meaning could not be extended beyond that pres...