Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla formed a 3 Member Inquiry Committee after MPs’ proposal to examine March 2025 fire incident linked to recovery of unexplained burnt cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence.
The Court found the provision in paragraph 7(ii) of the Procedure requiring the CJI to write to the President and the Prime Minister along with the report of the Committee to be in order, legal and valid.
The 3-Member Committee was constituted after reports surfaced that a huge pile of unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 15 crores were found from the residence of Justice Varma.
Justice Varma’s transfer was recommended by the Collegium on 24-3-2025 and the same was confirmed by the President of India on 28-3-2025.
The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the Chief Justice of India, on 24-3-2025, recommended the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma.
An in-house enquiry was initiated by the Supreme Court after reports surfaced that a huge pile of unaccounted cash was found from the residence of Justice Varma.
Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya has been directed to not assign any judicial work to Justice Yashwant Varma.
Reports suggest that the cash was found when a fire brigade reached Justice Varma’s residence to douse a fire. Allegedly Justice Varma was not at his residence then.
‘The Legislature recognized that while strict procedural compliance is fundamental to maintain fairness in assessment process, an inflexible adherence to procedure could inadvertently lead to administrative bottlenecks and a surge in litigation.’
‘Courts, while evaluating a challenge under Section 34, would not be justified in faulting an award merely because an alternative view was possible or that, in their opinion, a more just conclusion could have been reached.’
‘Although Genpact had alluded to the amended statutory regime that had come into existence and had informed the AO of the obligation to follow the procedure under Section 148A, no legal challenge was instituted to impugn the action commenced by notice dated 30-06-2021.’
Merely because a parent entity may exercise shareholder influence over its subsidiary that would not lead to an assumption that the subsidiary in question was operating as a mere puppet or that it was wholly subservient to the parent entity.
The Court observed that no new material has been found by the Revenue which would warrant reopening the assessment. A reading of the notices will crystallize the fact that it has been issued merely based on a change of opinion.
In cases where a search is conducted after 31-03-2021, the first proviso to Section 153C (1) would have to be construed and tested as regards the date when the Assessing Officer decides to initiate action against the non-searched entity.
The Court quashed the notice of reassessment issued on 31-3-2023 as it surpassed the ten-year block as prescribed u/S first provision to Section of 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court evaluated Art. 5 of India-USA Double Tax Avoidance Agreement to determine whether Progress Rail has Permanent Establishment in Noida and Varanasi and whether reassessment proceeding can be initiated upon them or not.
Indian Arbitration Forum in collaboration with KPMG, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. has organised Second edition of International Arbitration Dialogues on 07-12-2023