Supreme Court Weekly Round Up April 26 To May 2, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Deduction Under Section 80-IA Income Tax Act Not Restricted To 'Business Income' Only: Supreme CourtCase: Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. [CA 1327 of 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 235The bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran held that the scope of sub-section (5) of Section 80- IA of the Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating 'eligible business' as the 'only source of income'.The court observed that the essential ingredients of Section 80-IA (1) of the Act are: a) the 'gross total income' of an assessee should include profits and gains; b) those profits and gains are derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from a business referred to in subsection (4); c) the assessee is entitled for deduction of an amount equal to 100% of the profits and gains derived from such business for 10 consecutive assessment years; and d) in computing the 'total income' of the Assessee, such deduction shall be allowed. "We hold that the scope of sub-section (5) of Section 80- IA of the Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of the Act by treating 'eligible business' as the 'only source of income'. Sub-section (5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'." The bench held.2. Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Reconsider And Update Rules Relating To Execution Of DecreesCase: Rahul S Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi [CA 1659-1660 of 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 230The bench comprising former CJI SA Bobde, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat directed the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to Execution of Decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 of CPC, within one year.The observation came while issuing directions to reduce delays in the execution proceedings which shall be enforceable till the Rules are updated by High Courts. The court said that it must be ensured that the Rules are in consonance with CPC and the directions (issued now), with an endeavour to expedite the process of execution with the use of Information Technology tools.The Court observed that in suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest in such properties. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.3. Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act Will Attract As Long As Caste Identity Is One Of The Grounds For The Occurrence Of Offence: SC Doubts Earlier JudgmentsCase: Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [CrA 452 of 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 231The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah doubted the earlier judgments which interpreted Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, to mean that the offence should have been committed "only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste.The Court observed that this provision will attract as long as caste identity is one of the grounds for the occurrence of the offence. To deny the protection of Section 3 (2) (v) on the premise that the crime was not committed against an SC & ST person solely on the ground of their caste identity is to deny how social inequalities function in a cumulative fashion, the court said.The bench was considering the appeal filed by one Patan Jamal Vali, the sole accused tried for the offences punishable under Section 376(1) of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for committing rape on the victim girl who is aged about 20 years and blind by birth, on 31.03.2011 at about 9:30 AM in her house. The High Court had affirmed the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court on these charges. The Supreme Court finally set aside the conviction of the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act but upheld the conviction and life sentence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Read Also: Testimony Of Disabled Witness Cannot Be Considered Weak Or Inferior: SC Issues Guidelines To Make Criminal Justice System More Disabled-friendlyIMPORTANT APEX COURT UPDATES1. Supreme Court Allows UP Panchayat Elections Counting To Take Place Tomorrow With COVID SafeguardsAfter a special sitting held on Saturday, the Supreme Court this week refused to defer the counting of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat elections, scheduled to take ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up April 26 To May 2, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags