NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-03/04/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed all primary facts before the assessing officer and it was not required to give any further assistance to the assessing officer by disclosure of other facts. It was for the assessing officer at this stage to decide what inference should be drawn from the facts of the case. In the present case the assessing officer on the basis of the facts disclosed to him did not doubt the genuiness of the transaction set up by the assessee.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1008 OF 2020

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.

VERSUS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX 

Continue Reading

RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020

ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSION-Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co­accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co­ accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co­accused. If for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a co­accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case.

A confession of the accused may be admissible and used not only against him but also against a co­accused person tried jointly with him for the same offence. Section 30 applies to a case in which the confession is made by accused tried at the same time with the accused person against whom the confession is used. The confession of an accused tried previously would be rendered inadmissible.

ACTS: Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of TADA Rules

Continue Reading

Smt. Asha Devi Vs Dukhi Sao and another-08/08/1974

A Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a first appeal to the High Court is not exactly equivalent to a second appeal under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore it cannot be held that a Letters Patent appeal of this kind can only lie on a question of law and not otherwise.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Smt. Asha Devi

Versus

Dukhi Sao and another
Continue Reading

Kale and others VS Deputy Director of Consolidation and others- 21/01/1976

Family settlement—The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family. (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (3) The family arrangements may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; (4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immoveable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17 of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has not title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owners, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.

Continue Reading

Umer khan Vs Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh and others-28/07/2011

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—second appeal—Substantial question of law—Partition decree restored by High Court—Jurisdiction of High Court in hearing second appeal is founded on formulation of substantial question of law—Judgment of High Court is rendered patently illegal, if second appeal is heard and judgment and decree appealed against is reversed without formulating substantial question of law—Judgment of High Court does not indicate that scope of second appeal was kept in mind while hearing second appeal—Impugned judgment set aside.

Continue Reading

Shiv Cotex Vs Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others-30/08/2011

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 17 Rule 1—Adjournment—Civil disputes drag on and on—Misplaced sympathy and indulgence by appellate and revisional Courts compound the malady further—No litigant has right to abuse procedure provided in CPC—Absence of lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other Court or elsewhere or on ground of strike call or change of lawyer or continuous illness of lawyer or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments—If despite three opportunities, no evidence was let in by plaintiff, it deserved no sympathy in second appeal in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Shiv Cotex

Versus

Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others
Continue Reading

Dayanandi Vs Rukma D. Suvarna and Others-31/10/2011

Succession Act, 1925—Sections 63 and 71– An analysis of Section 63 shows that the testator must sign or affix his mark on the Will or the same shall be signed by some other person as per his direction and in his presence. The signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him shall be placed in a manner which may convey the intention of the testator to give effect to the writing as a Will, which is also required to be attested by two or more persons, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark on the Will or some other person sign the Will in the presence or as per the direction of the testator. If the witness has received a personal acknowledgment from the testator of his signature or mark or the signature of other person signing on his behalf, then it is not necessary that both the witnesses shall simultaneously remain present. The section also lays down that no particular form of attestation is necessary.

Continue Reading

P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs L. Lakshmi Reddy-05/12/1956

ADVERSE POSSESSION-In order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits, of the properties. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heir’s title.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

P. Lakshmi Reddy

Versus

L. Lakshmi Reddy

Continue Reading

Dilawar Singh Vs State of Delhi-05/09/2007

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

COGNISANCE AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION-If the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence on the complaint filed before him, he was not obliged to examine the complainant on oath and the witnesses present at the time of the filing of the complaint. We cannot read the provisions of Section 190 to mean that once a complaint is filed, a Magistrate is bound to take cognizance if the facts stated in the complaint disclose the commission of any offence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dilawar Singh

Versus

State of Delhi

(Before: A. Pasayat And D. K. Jain, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2002,

Decided on : 05-09-2007.

Continue Reading