Taxation Law - Income Tax – Share Application Money – Section 68 – Evidentiary Value of Statements under Section 131 – ITAT erred in holding that authorities have no power to administer oath under Section 131 – High Court held that such statements are admissible and Section 131 explicitly empowers authorities to examine persons on oath – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 4.10–4.12].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Addition based on vague statements – Statement of Mahendra Kumar Sethia found vague, lacking specific allegation that cash was received from assessee – No corroborative material to establish cash trail – ITAT’s reappreciation of evidence not perverse – Fourth question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 7.1–7.4].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Reliance on prior judgment – ITAT rightly relied on High Court decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2007–08 – Legal principles laid down in Lovely Exports and prior case applicable even after insertion of 2012 provisos – Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness remain primary tests – Third question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 6.1–6.12].

Income Tax – Section 56(2)(viib) – Fair Market Value of Shares – Valuation by assessee not specifically questioned by AO – ITAT held that AO must record judicially justifiable dissatisfaction before rejecting valuation – Addition not sustainable without proper analysis under Rule 11UA – Second question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 8.1–8.5].

Income Tax – Lease Rent Paid to Director – Section 40A(2)(a) – ITAT remanded issue for fresh consideration regarding lease rent paid to Director – Assessment must consider prevailing market rates, amenities, and statutory provisions – Remand upheld – No substantial question of law arises – Fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 answered accordingly [Paras 9.1–9.5].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) – Lease advance and employee contributions – ITAT remanded issue without properly examining business necessity or timing of payment – High Court held remand order to be legally infirm – ITAT directed to reconsider in accordance with law – Fifth and sixth questions of law in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 10.1–10.9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue – Second, third and fourth questions of law answered in favour of Assessee – No question of law arises on fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 – Fifth and sixth questions in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue – Matter remanded to ITAT for re-examination on Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) [Para 11].

Civil Law - Surplus Area Declaration – Mandatory Notice to Tenants – Rule 6 of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956 – Held: It is mandatory for the Collector to serve notice upon tenants in cultivating possession before declaring land as surplus. Where revenue records (Jamabandis 1950-1981) consistently showed plaintiffs as tenants, an order passed declaring land surplus without notice to them is in complete violation of statutory mandate and principles of natural justice. Such an order is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law. [Paras 16, 19-20].

Vesting of Land in State – Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 – Validity of Foundation Order – Held: Vesting of surplus land in the State postulates a valid surplus declaration. If the foundational order (1961 surplus order) is void for want of notice, no vesting takes place under Section 12(3). The State cannot acquire title based on a nullity, and consequently, cannot allot such land to third parties. [Paras 17-18, 21].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar under Section 26 of Haryana Ceiling Act – Exception for Void Orders – Held: The bar on Civil Court jurisdiction applies only to orders passed within jurisdiction by prescribed authorities. It does not apply where the foundational order is a nullity or void ab initio. The Civil Court retains jurisdiction to examine and set aside orders passed without complying with mandatory statutory procedures (specifically notice under Rule 6). [Paras 22-23].

Limitation – Suit for Possession based on Title – Article 65 Limitation Act – Held: A suit seeking recovery of possession based on title is governed by Article 65 (12 years limitation), not Article 58. Limitation does not run in favor of a party who takes possession under a void and non-est order. [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Concurrent findings of Courts below affirmed. [Para 28].

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Section 88 – Inquiry and Assessment of Damages – Functus Officio – Replacement of Authorized Officer – Held: The authority of an officer to conduct inquiry and submit a report flows solely from the order of appointment – Once the Registrar issues an order replacing the Authorized Officer, the original officer becomes functus officio and loses all jurisdiction to act – A report submitted by the original officer after the date of his replacement is void ab initio and without authority. [Paras 12-17]

Administrative Law – Effectiveness of Orders – Knowledge of Officer – Held: An administrative order (replacement of officer) takes effect when issued by the competent authority – The validity of the cessation of power does not depend on the personal knowledge of the officer being replaced – The plea that the officer was unaware of the replacement order cannot validate a report submitted after his authority was withdrawn. [Paras 19-21, 24]

Decision: Petitions allowed. Report dated 28.02.2022 and Recovery Certificate dated 13.10.2022 quashed. Matter remitted to the Competent Authority for fresh hearing by the newly appointed Authorized Officer.

Criminal Law – Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for cruelty to wife based on letters and testimony of her family members – Prosecution relied on letters Exhs.13, 15, 16 to allege mental and physical harassment and financial demands – Defence produced 17 letters and medical documents evidencing cordial relations and longstanding illness of the deceased – Daughter (P.W.4) of deceased denied any cruelty and stated mother was mentally and physically ill – Held: Letters fail to establish cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC – Matrimonial life lasted 13 years with no proximate cause for suicide linked to accused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1, 6, 15–16, 19–24]

Evidence – Suicide – Abetment under Section 306 IPC – Presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act not attracted – Trial court acquitted accused of abetment to suicide and Dowry Prohibition Act offences – High Court found no proximate or immediate instigation or harassment leading to suicide – Suicide occurred nine years after letter relied upon by prosecution – Letters and oral testimonies lacked direct connection to incident – Held: No evidence of abetment – Presumption under Section 113A not triggered due to marriage exceeding 7 years and lack of cruelty [Paras 4.5, 16.4, 21–22]

Dowry Prohibition Act – Charges under Sections 4 and 5 – No proof of dowry demand or unlawful financial coercion – Letters by deceased herself sought money voluntarily for personal reasons – Trial court rightly acquitted under Dowry Prohibition Act – Appellate Court concurred [Paras 3.1, 15.1–15.2]

Witness Testimony – Family Members and Neighbours – Allegations general and uncorroborated – Complainant and brother gave vague assertions of harassment without specifying nature, dates, or amounts – Independent witnesses either hostile or did not support prosecution – Daughter's testimony exculpatory – Held: Witnesses failed to substantiate charge beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 6–11]

Circumstantial Evidence – Letters and Communications – Letters written between parties spanned over a decade – Prosecution’s key exhibits showed marital discord but not cruelty as defined under law – Defence letters demonstrated husband’s concern and efforts at reconciliation – Communication about scooter showed no dishonest intent – Held: Circumstances do not satisfy standard for conviction under 498A [Paras 8, 15–16]

Standard of Proof – Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Court emphasized settled principle that charges under Section 498A and related presumptions must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Cited multiple Supreme Court decisions clarifying limitations of Section 113A and importance of proximate causation in suicide cases [Paras 18–22]

Appeal – Maintainability after Death of Accused – Appeal validly continued by legal heirs under Section 394(2) CrPC – Heirs included as per definition of "near relatives" – No procedural infirmity [Para 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC set aside – Deceased accused acquitted – Letters and testimonies insufficient to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide – Trial court’s reliance on documents and assumptions held erroneous – Record and proceedings remanded to trial court [Para 26]

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Cancellation – Petitioner and selected candidate secured equal marks in MBK selection – Petitioner alleged fabrication of marks to favour Opposite Party No.6 – Inquiry by District Project Manager confirmed irregularities – Collector directed re-evaluation of selection process following government guidelines – Held: In case of tainted selection, entire process must be scrapped – No one, including petitioner, can claim benefit under an illegal selection [Paras 2, 3, 6, 8]

Administrative Law – Fair Selection Process – Duty to Adhere to Guidelines – Collector acted upon inquiry report revealing non-transparent selection and guideline violations – Directed fresh selection – Held: Mandating appointment of petitioner without valid selection would amount to endorsing illegality – Petitioner free to participate in fresh process [Paras 6, 8]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Mandamus – Scope – Petitioner sought mandamus for appointment despite proven irregularities – Court held that relief cannot be granted where selection process itself is vitiated – Principles of fairness and transparency must prevail – Petition devoid of merit [Paras 8, 9]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Order of Collector dated 11.03.2022 upheld – Petitioner not entitled to appointment based on tainted selection – Permitted to participate in fresh selection if not already concluded.

Religious Institution – Classification under Endowments Act – Notification – Appellants challenged inclusion of Yogananda Ashramam as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of A.P. Endowments Act – Evidence showed that Ashramam was established and maintained by founders' family without any public endowment, offerings, or public access – Court found that management was always with the family and public participation was minimal and not as of right – Held: Ashramam not a public religious institution within meaning of Section 2(23) – Notification quashed [Paras 10–22, 26–28]

Natural Justice – Publication under Section 6(c)(ii) – Procedure – Court held that no notice was given to appellants before notification enlisting Ashramam as public religious institution – Violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Notification issued without following Sections 43, 44, and income assessment under Section 65 – Procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable – [Paras 23–25, 28]

Specific Endowment – No Dedication of Property – Settlement deed did not indicate any dedication of property or income for public religious or charitable use – No evidence of specific endowment as per Section 2(25) – Held: Absence of endowment defeats classification as religious institution or temple – [Paras 21–22]

Legal Precedents – Private Religious Institutions – Followed precedents in VVVRK Yechendra v. State of A.P. and Miryala Narayana v. State of A.P. – High Court reiterated that publication under Section 6 must follow registration and hearing of affected parties – Held: Classification made in violation of binding procedural requirements and liable to be struck down – [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Gazette Notification under Section 6(c)(ii) dated 13.07.2000 quashed – Order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.08.2009 in O.A. No. 42 of 2001 set aside – Ashramam held to be a private institution – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law - CrPC – MPDVPK Act – Jurisdiction – Cognizance – Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC – Offences under Section 394 IPC and Sections 11/13 MPDVPK Act being “specified offences” – Only Special Court competent to take cognizance under Section 8 of MPDVPK Act – Magistrate not empowered to direct registration of FIR for specified offences – FIR and Magistrate’s order quashed – Petition allowed [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Procedure – Section 156(3) CrPC – Stage of Investigation – Distinction between ordering investigation and taking cognizance – Held: Direction under Section 156(3) CrPC is not itself cognizance; however, only a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 CrPC can issue such direction – Since MPDVPK Act excludes Magistrate’s power to take cognizance regarding specified offences, Section 156(3) order also cannot be invoked for such offences [Paras 10, 13].

Special Courts – MPDVPK Act – Sections 6 & 8 – Exclusive jurisdiction – Specified offences – Section 394 IPC expressly included in “specified offence” under Section 2(f)(2)(iii) – Only Special Court can take cognizance of such offences – Magistrate lacks jurisdiction even at pre-cognizance stage for directing registration of FIR in respect of specified offences – Order of Magistrate invalid [Paras 11–14].

Interpretation – Section 2(b) & 2(f) MPDVPK Act – Definition of “dacoit” and “specified offence” – Offences committed in notified dacoity-affected areas fall exclusively within Special Court jurisdiction – Magistrate cannot assume competence merely because investigation is at initial stage [Para 14].

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Magistrate’s order directing registration of FIR for offences under Section 394 IPC and Sections 11/13 of MPDVPK Act set aside – FIR registered pursuant thereto also quashed as being without jurisdiction – Petition allowed [Para 15].

Constitutional Law – Right to Health – Medical Negligence – Public Law Remedy – Strict Liability – Context of patients losing eyesight after cataract surgeries at Govt. Civil Hospital under the National Programme for Control of Blindness – Held: The right to health and medical care is an integral part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. An inquiry committee report revealed that the loss of vision suffered by the petitioners was caused by a severe post-operative infection (Endophthalmitis) due to the presence of 'Pseudomonas Aeruginosa' bacteria in the Operation Theatre fluids and saline. This established a gross deficiency in service and negligence in maintaining sterile conditions by the hospital authorities. The State is strictly liable to pay compensation under public law remedy for the deprivation of life and liberty caused by the negligence of its employees, distinct from any private law tort remedies available to the victims. [Paras 11-14]

Compensation – Quantum – Loss of Vision – Enhancement of Compensation – Context of 7 victims losing eyes after surgery – Held: While the State Government admitted liability and offered a standard ex-gratia payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- based on a policy decision, the Court found this amount inadequate given the severity of the injury (permanent loss of vision in one eye). Considering the irreversible nature of the loss, the trauma suffered, and the violation of fundamental rights, the Court enhanced the compensation. The State respondents were directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) to each of the aggrieved persons. In cases where the original petitioners had died during the pendency of the writ, the compensation was directed to be paid to their legal heirs within a period of 6 weeks. [Para 15]

Decision: Writ Petitions disposed of with direction to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to each victim. [Para 17]

Civil Law – Remand of Case – Order 41 Rule 23A CPC – Failure to Appreciate Evidence Independently – Context of Trial Court decreeing a suit for possession solely based on a previous judgment (Ex. PX) without independent findings on title – Held: The Trial Court committed a material procedural error by failing to record independent findings on the core issue of title (Issue No. 1). Instead of discussing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court relied exclusively on a previous judgment (Ex. PX) concerning the same land. Since Ex. PX was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Court, the entire foundation of the Trial Court's decree collapsed. The Lower Appellate Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the decree and remand the matter for a fresh decision, as the Trial Court had effectively failed to apply its judicial mind to the pleadings and evidence on record. A wholesale remand is permissible and necessary when the Trial Court has not decided material issues on their own merits. [Paras 14-15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Case remanded to Trial Court. [Para 16]