Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 19 - August 25, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 NOMINAL INDEX Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 Mr G Venkateshan v The State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319 Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 Maharaja v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321 S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322 Viterra India Pvt Ltd. Versus The Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 323 Siva Vijayan v Home Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 324 Dharani v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 325 Preetha v Inspector of Police and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 326 Manohar Thangaraj v Rt.Rev.ARGST Barnabas and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 327 M/s. Ohm Sakthi Blue Metals Versus The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 328 Tvl.Deepa Traders Versus The Deputy Commissioner (ST), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 329 REPORT ESOP Employee Without Any Contractual Obligation is , Perquisite',Taxable As Salary U/s 17(2) : Madras High Court Case Title: Nishithkumar Mukeshkumar Mehta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 While pointing out that the payment by FPS was not made towards the ESOPs as the Assessee continues to hold the ESOP (Employee Stock Option Purchase) even after the receipt of the compensation, the Madras High Court held the receipt in hands of Assessee qualifies as perquisite and taxable under the head 'Salaries'. Hence, the High Court refuses to allow 'Nil' certificate of tax deduction u/s 192 in reference to such compensation, which is to be treated as perquisite in lieu of 'salary'. Further, Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act provides for the valuation of perquisites for tax purposes, which is equal to the cost which has been incurred by the organization/ employer for/ on behalf of the employee. Only Gender Centric Offences Excluded From Plea Bargaining: Madras High Court Lays Down Suggestions For Trial Courts Case Title: Mr G Venkateshan v The State Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 319 The Madras High Court has emphasised that the term “offences against women” which is excluded from plea bargaining would mean only gender-centric or gender-neutral offences and not non-gender offences committed against women. Justice G Jayachandran also laid down suggestions which the trial courts could look into while dealing with applications for plea bargaining. The court suggested that the trial courts could inform the accused about his right to invoke plea bargaining soon after the framing charges, thus allowing the accused to exercise his right before the expiry of 30 days from the date of framing charges as prescribed under Section 290 of BNSS. Nullity Of Marriage Doesn't Bar Wife From Claiming Maintenance: Madras High Court Case Title: Sathiyamurthy v Arputha Mary Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 While refusing to interfere with an order granting maintenance to the wife, the Madras High Court said that it was a settled position that even if a marriage was declared null by a competent court, it would not bar the wife from claiming maintenance. Justice G Ilangovan was hearing a plea by a husband to recall an earlier order of the High Court fixing maintenance of Rs5000/- to his wife. The court observed that if the husband had any grievance over the order, he should have taken recourse through proper proceedings. The court, thus denied to interfere with the order stating that the petition filed without following the procedure was not maintainable. Grindr App Used To Commit Offence: Madras High Court Asks Centre To Take Appropriate Action Against App Including Blocking Case Title: Maharaja v Inspector of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 321 The Madras High Court recently observed that the popular gay dating app, Grindr was being used for illegal activities. The court was hearing a bail petition of a man who was accused of sexually abusing and robbing another man through the app. The court thus suggested the Investigating officer to report to the Ministry of Electronic & Information Technology so that it could take appropriate action including blocking the app as per with law. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy remarked that the app was illegal not because it dealt with homosexual persons, but it served only a prurient purpose and the sexual interest of the parties. Commercial Tax Officer Not Obligated To Physically Verify E-Way Bills: Madras High Court Case Title: S.Doctor Viswanathan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 322 The Madras High Court has quashed the suspension order of a commercial tax officer who issued refunds to fake exporters without verification. The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh has observed that, as a quasi-judicial authority, if the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements that are...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 19 - August 25, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags