Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 18 to March 24, 2024

A weekly round-up of important cases from the Madras High Court Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130 NOMINAL INDEX Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117 Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118 Vijaykumar Versus The State Tax Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 119 M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120 A Rajasekaran v State, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 121 The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122 Gandhiyawati T Ramesh v The Chief Election Commissioner, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 123 Raji v Executive Magistrate and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 124 K Mariappan v The Government of Tamil Nadi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 125 S Menaka v KSK Nepolian Socraties (batch case), 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 126 K Nagomi v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 127 B Ramkumar Adityan v Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 128 M Kesavan v The Principal and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 129 The Government of Tamil Nadu v Dr.S.Vijay Vikraman, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 130 REPORT No One Can Alienate Or Create Encumbrance On Land Belonging To Deity; Laws Of Limitation & Adverse Possession Not Applicable: Madras High Court Case Title: Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal Temple v Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 115 The Madras High Court has recently observed that no person can alienate or create encumbrance for land belonging to an idol or deity without following the due process of law. The court thus highlighted that the law of limitation or adverse possession does not apply to a land belonging to a deity, idol or temple. Justice P Velmurugan made the observations in a plea filed by the Fit Person of Arulmigu Sundara Varadharaja Perumal temple seeking directions to the concerned authorities to restore the patta of the temple land. Tax Recovery Officer Cannot Declare Sale Made By Assessee In Favour Of 3rd Party As Void: Madras High Court Case Title: K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 The Madras High Court has held that a tax recovery officer cannot declare a sale made by the assessee in favour of a third party void if he finds that the property of the assessee was transferred by the assessee to a third party with an intention to defraud the revenue. The bench of Justice C. Saravanan has observed that the Income Tax Department will have to file a suit in terms of Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though under Rule 11 (6) of the 2nd Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the party against whom an order of attachment is made has to institute a suit in a civil court to establish the right which he claims over the property in dispute, and subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order of the Tax Recovery Officer shall be conclusive. Rash Driving | Criminal Jurisprudence Must Move Towards Reforming Teenagers Than Branding Them As Criminals: Madras High Court Case Title: Mohammed Ashik v Inspector of Police Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 117 The Madras High Court recently observed that while dealing with rash and negligent driving among youngsters, the aim of criminal jurisprudence must be towards reforming them and not branding the teenagers as criminals. Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that instead of dumping the teenagers as criminals, they must be made to understand the consequences of reckless driving. The court thus suggested a conveyor belt-like system where the teenager indulging in reckless driving would get into the system and come out as a reformed person who no longer got involved in such reckless driving. Wilful Failure To Furnish Return As Per Sec 139(1) Is Only Criterion For Initiation Of Prosecution U/s 276CC: Madras High Court Case Title: Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118 The Madras High Court recently highlighted that provision of Section 278E of the Income tax Act brings in a statutory presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state. Accordingly, the High Court refused to interfere in the criminal proceedings and relegated the petitioner/ taxpayer to the trial, while stating that the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the contrary and that can be done only at the time of the trial. A Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh observed that “the only criterion for initiation of prosecution is that there must be a wilful failure to furnish returns as required under Section...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 18 to March 24, 2024

Upasana Sajeev

Tags