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

M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER  VS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER- 20/03/2020

Section 156(3) CrPCEven if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.

ACTS: Article 136 of the Constitution of India and Section 156(3) CrPC

FROM: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2011

M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER 

VERSUS

S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER 

ORDER

The impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the first respondent before us, directs the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy to register a case, that is, First Information Report, on the basis of the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and after investigation file the final report in accordance with law.

Continue Reading

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA  Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI -20/03/2020

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, this Bench been constituted and we held the sitting at 2.30 a.m. on 20.03.2020. When the power is vested in the very high constitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter. It cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India did not consider the mercy petition with open mind filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 122 OF 2020

(Arising out of Diary No.10611 of 2020)

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA 

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 

ORDER

(1) In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta has challenged rejection of mercy petition by His Excellency the President of India inter alia on various grounds; that settled principles of consideration of mercy petition have not been followed. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s plea of juvenility has not been finally determined and this aspect was not kept in view by His Excellency the President of India.

Continue Reading

DHANPAT  VERSUS SHEO RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS-19/03/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

WILL-it is the overall assessment of the Court on the basis of the unusual features appearing in the Will or the unnatural circumstances surrounding its execution, that justifies a close scrutiny of the same before it can be accepted. Herein, the cumulative effect of the unusual features and circumstances surrounding the Will, would weigh upon the court in the determination required to be made by it. The judicial verdict will be based on the consideration of all the unusual features and suspicious circumstances put together and not upon the impact of any single feature that may be found in a Will or a singular circumstance that may appear from the process leading to its execution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1960 OF 2020

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 22496 OF 2014)

Continue Reading

BENEDICT DENIS KINNY  VS TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS-19/03/2020

WRIT JURISDICTION-The power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and is basic structure of our Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary and discretionary. The look out of the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a tribunal, a statutory authority or an authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1429-1430/2020

(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13703-13704 of 2019)

BENEDICT DENIS KINNY

VERSUS

TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1431/2020
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 19732 of 2019)

SMT. PRACHI PRASAD PARAB

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Continue Reading

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR VS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR-19/03/2020

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

INTERPRETATION- It is true that while interpreting a Tax Legislature the consequences and hardship are not looked into but the purpose and object by which taxing statutes have been enacted cannot be lost sight. This Court while considering the very same provision i.e. Section 143(1-A), its object and purpose and while upholding the provision held that the burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax is on the Revenue which may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it.

ACTS: Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8590 of 2010

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR

VERSUS

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT) & ANR.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the Division Bench judgment dated 13.11.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.837 of 1993 filed by the Revenue has been allowed upholding the demand of additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are:

The assessee is a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee filed return on 30.12.1991 for the assessment year 1991-92 showing a loss amounting to Rs. (-)427,39,32,972/-. Due to a bonafide mistake the assessee claimed 100% depreciation of Rs. 333,77,70,317/- on written down value of assets instead of 75% depreciation. Under the unamended Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the assessee was entitled to claim 100% depreciation. However, after the amendment the depreciation could only be 75%. The assessee supported the returns with provisional revenue account, balance sheet as on 31.03.1991, details of gross fixed assets, computation chart and depreciation chart. No tax was payable on the said return by the assessee. No notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was received by the assessee.

Continue Reading

AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH  VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020

The grounds raised by the petitioner that the Press interviews given by the persons in position of authority reported in the newspapers have influenced the decision of the President of India in rejection of the mercy petition is concerned, when the decision has been taken by the highest constitutional authority like the President of India it cannot be said that the President of India was influenced by such interviews reported in the newspapers.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.121 of 2020

(Arising out of W.P.(CRL.) Diary No(s). 10508 of 2020)

AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Continue Reading

MUKESH VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI-19/03/2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).119/2020

MUKESH

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

ORDER

We have heard Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Mukesh- the convict.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the points on merits of the matter:- (i) That there was no proper consideration of evidence; (ii) regarding the disability of Ram Singh (accused no.1) who subsequently allegedly committed suicide in the prison; and (iii) raising doubts about the arrest of the petitioner at Karoli, Rajasthan and inter alia on other points.

Continue Reading

TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS VS RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS-04/03/2020

The family pension did not constitute a part of the estate of the deceased.The right to family pension in more than one wife being conditional in nature and not absolute, in view of nomination in favour of respondent no.1 alone, appellant no 1 in the facts of the case can also be said to have waived her statutory right to pension in lieu of benefits received by her under the settlement deed.

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).1835 OF 2020

(arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 23766 of 2017)

Date: 2020.03.04

TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The appellants are aggrieved by the denial of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the District Judge, East District, Gangtok, affirmed by the High Court in appeal. Consequentially appellant no. 1 stands denied the family pension which has been granted to respondent no.1 alone.

2. The facts are undisputed. Appellant no.1 is the first wife of the deceased Ram Chandra Nirola. The two children born from the wedlock, appellant nos.2 and 3 are adults today. The deceased, during the subsistence of his first marriage, solemnized a second marriage with respondent no.1 on 09.05.1987. Three children were born from this second marriage. The deceased during his life time, on 30.06.2008 executed a Banda Patra (settlement deed), christened as a partition deed, by which he divided his movable and immovable properties between the two wives before his retirement on 30.06.2009. He expired subsequently on 13.04.2015. The appellants applied for a succession certificate, which was denied in view of the settlement deed dated 30.06.2008. The appeal also having been dismissed, the appellants are before this Court staking their claim for family pension under the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter called “the Pension Rules”).

Continue Reading