Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, September 6 To September 12, 2021

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. Income Tax Act - Disallowance Under Section 14A Can't Be Made Just Because Assessee Has Not Maintained Separate Accounts For Expenditures Incurred For Tax-Free Income : Supreme CourtCase: South Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ; CA 9606 OF 2011Citation: LL 2021 SC 435Giving tax relief to a group of scheduled banks, the Supreme Court has observed that the assessing officer cannot make disallowance of deduction under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act merely because the assessee has not maintained separate accounts for expenses incurred in earning tax-free income.In the case South Indian Bank Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court observed that proportionate disallowance of interest under Section 14A of Income Tax Act is not warranted for investments made in tax free bonds/ securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to Assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments.The bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy was considering the appeals filed by various banks in which the issue raised was whether Section 14A of the Income Tax Act enables the Department to make disallowance on expenditure incurred for earning tax free income in cases where assessees do not maintain separate accounts for the investments and other expenditures incurred for earning the tax-free income.2. Employee Cannot Insist On Transfer To A Particular Place; It's For Employer To Decide: Supreme CourtCase Title: Namrata Verma v State of UPCitation : LL 2021 SC 444The Supreme Court on September 6, 2021 observed that it was not for the employee to insist the transfer or non-transfer to a particular place but it was for the employer to do the same considering the requirement.The observations were made by the division bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose while dismissing the special leave petition assailing Allahabad High Court's order of refusing to interfere with the petitioner's representation that rejected transfer to another college."It is not for the employee to insist on transferring him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement," the bench had observed.3. Writ Court Cannot Adjudicate Factual Disputes Arising Out Of Pure Contractual Matters Having No Statutory Flavour: Supreme CourtCase: Union of India vs. M/s Puna Hinda ; CA 4981 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 443The Supreme Court observed that writ court cannot adjudicate factual disputes arising out of pure contractual matters in the field of private law having no statutory flavour.In this case, the bid of the writ petitioner was accepted for construction and improvement of road between Lumla and Tashigong under Special Accelerated Rural Development Programme (SARDP). The bills submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the authorities. He approached the High Court of Gauhati by filing a writ petition. The High Court allowing the writ petition directed the authority to approve the Detailed Project Report and pay the pending bills on the basis of Final Joint Survey/Measurement Report.4. Compassionate Appointment - Policy Prevailing At The Time When Employee Died/Application Was Made Is Only To Be Considered : Supreme CourtCase Title: Seema Kausar v. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.Citation : LL 2021 SC 442The Supreme Court while upholding Bombay High Court's order of rejecting compassionate appointment, observed that it can be made only as per the Government's policy, and only in case where eligibility criteria under the Scheme has been satisfied.Dismissing the special leave petition, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose also observed that, "It also cannot be disputed that the policy which was prevailing at the time when the deceased employee died/the application was made only is required to be considered."5. Consumer Complaints Alleging Deficiency In Service Related To Transfer Of Title Of Immovable Property Not Maintainable: Supreme CourtCase: Estate Officer vs. Charanjit Kaur ; CA 4964 OF 2021Citation: LL 2021 SC 441The Supreme Court observed that consumer complaints on the ground of deficiency in service related to transfer of title of the immovable property is not maintainable.The expression 'service' includes housing construction and not allotment of a site or a plot, the bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and A.S.Bopanna observed.The court, however, added that though it is not a case of the deficiency in service as contemplated by Consumer Act but definitely a case of exercise of jurisdiction in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Therefore, invoking powers under Article 142 of the constitution, the court directed the Administration to decide the claim of conversion as on the date when consumer complaints were filed.6. Trees To Be Valued Separately When Acquired Land Value Is Determined With Reference To Sales Statistics: Supreme...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up, September 6 To September 12, 2021

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags