Income Tax – Charitable Purpose – Educational Activities – Assessee, NIIT Foundation, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, engaged in educational and skill development activities for underprivileged youth – Revenue challenged tax-exempt status, claiming activities were commercial – Tribunal set aside CIT€’s order under Section 263 – Delhi High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision – Emphasized systematic instruction and training as “education” under Section 2(15) – Activities aligned with the charitable purpose of education – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Application of Section 263 – Scope and Validity – High Court found that CIT€ exceeded jurisdiction under Section 263 – Original assessment order by AO after thorough scrutiny justified – CIT€’s conclusion of activities being commercial based on TDS and service tax deductions was flawed – Revenue’s failure to demonstrate any specific error or prejudice in AO’s assessment [Paras 21-35].

Procedural Compliance – Enquiry and Verification – AO had conducted detailed verification of NIIT Foundation’s activities, compliance with regulatory requirements, and documentation of charitable educational programs – High Court emphasized importance of procedural fairness and adequate enquiry by CIT€ under Section 263 [Paras 36-48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld – NIIT Foundation’s activities recognized as charitable educational activities under Section 2(15) – Directions for Revenue to grant exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act [Para 49].
 

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Section 326A IPC – Appellant accused of throwing acid on his wife during a matrimonial dispute – Injuries confirmed to be erythema with no burn injuries or loss of vision – Petitioner in judicial custody for 80 days – Investigation complete – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Principles – Reference to Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. – Emphasis on presumption of innocence and principle that bail is the rule, jail is the exception – Consideration of Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7-9].

Conditions of Bail – Directed to appear before Investigating Officer periodically – Restrictions on travel and contact with witnesses – Surrender of passport – Provision for cancellation of bail upon violation of conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Conditions imposed for periodic reporting to Investigating Officer, restrictions on travel, surrender of passport, and non-tampering of evidence.
 

Will – Proof and Validity – Dispute over property between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law – Appellant claimed exclusive ownership based on a Will executed by the deceased son – Respondent contested the Will as forged – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the Will shrouded in suspicious circumstances – Scribe of the Will was a milkman with minimal education, and witnesses were closely related to the appellant, raising doubts – The Will was not produced for two years after the death of the testator – Both Courts rejected the Will and dismissed the appellant's suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Suspicious Circumstances – Court found multiple suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will – Non-registration of the Will, delayed production, and the exclusion of the respondent (wife) from the estate despite a love marriage with the deceased were key factors – The appellant failed to dispel these suspicions or prove the Will as the last valid testament of the deceased [Paras 7-9].

Legal Principles – Reiterated that in cases where a Will is surrounded by suspicion, the onus is on the propounder to remove all doubts – Cited principles from Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the heavy burden on the propounder to prove the validity of a Will in the presence of suspicious circumstances [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. The Court found no substantial question of law requiring its determination, and upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, dismissing the appellant’s claim to the property.

Criminal Contempt – Unruly Behavior by Advocates – Members of the Kottayam Bar Association were found guilty of criminal contempt for disrupting court proceedings, shouting slogans, and hurling abusive remarks at the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kottayam. The court emphasized the seriousness of such behavior, which interfered with the administration of justice and tended to lower the authority of the court. The apologies submitted by the respondents were deemed insufficient by the court [Paras 1-4].

Acceptance of Apology – Conditional Service – Despite the respondents’ unconditional apologies conforming to Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, the court decided not to discharge them solely based on their apologies. Instead, the court mandated that the respondents provide free legal aid to the poor and needy for six months as a form of purging the contempt [Paras 4-6].

Order – Conditional Discharge – The court ordered the respondents to render their services to the District Legal Services Authority, Kottayam, for six months, while allowing them to continue their legal practice. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority was tasked with assigning legal aid work to the respondents and submitting a report on their performance at the end of the six-month period [Para 6].

Decision: Apologies accepted conditionally – Respondents to provide free legal aid for six months. The court retains the right to monitor compliance through reports from the District Legal Services Authority, Kottayam.
 

Bail – Cancellation – Grounds for Revocation – Accused granted bail for offences under IPC, IT Act, and POCSO Act – Subsequent complaint by victim’s mother alleging threats and pressure to withdraw the case – Special Court canceled bail for violation of conditions – High Court upheld the cancellation, emphasizing that interference with witnesses and threats are valid grounds for revocation [Paras 1-10].

Legal Standards for Cancellation – Established parameters for bail cancellation include misuse of liberty, interference with the investigation, and attempts to intimidate witnesses – Detailed examination of legal precedents upholding these principles – High Court confirmed that violation of any bail condition warrants revocation [Paras 8-13].

Detailed Case Analysis – Review of records showed prima facie evidence supporting allegations of threats by the accused – Court noted the importance of examining supervening circumstances and conduct of the accused post-grant of bail – Affirmed the necessity for courts to carefully consider allegations and protect the integrity of the judicial process [Paras 7-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Bail cancellation order upheld – Directions issued for immediate surrender of the petitioner, failing which coercive steps to be taken for arrest and detention [Paras 9-11].

Advance Ruling – Eligibility of Recipient – Petition challenging AAR order rejecting application for advance ruling on transportation exemption – AAR held that petitioner, as recipient and not supplier, could not seek advance ruling – Court found this interpretation erroneous – Sections 95, 97 allow registered persons, including those liable on reverse charge basis, to seek rulings – Definition and context of ‘applicant’ and ‘advance ruling’ under CGST Act support inclusivity – AAR directed to reconsider application [Paras 1-20].

Reverse Charge Mechanism – Scope and Application – Section 9(3) CGST Act – Government notification mandates tax payment on reverse charge basis by recipients in specified categories – Court emphasizes recipient treated as supplier for tax purposes – Application for advance ruling valid for recipients in reverse charge scenarios – Order under Section 98(2) CGST Act appealable if procedural requirements unmet [Paras 10-17].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal Process – Section 100 CGST Act – Appeal limited to orders under Section 98(4), not rejections under Section 98(2) – Court clarifies jurisdiction for writ petition due to lack of alternative remedy against preliminary rejection [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned AAR order set aside – Matter remanded to AAR for fresh decision under Section 98(4) CGST Act in light of statutory interpretations and context [Paras 19-20].
 

Banking Law – Classification of NPA – SBI classified Atibir Industries’ account as NPA on October 16, 2020, based on defaults in cash credit and term loan facilities. Borrower challenged this classification and subsequent sale to ARC, citing RBI guidelines and moratoriums during COVID-19. Court upheld SBI’s classification, stating cash credit account was irregular, and all credit facilities became NPA [Paras 55-67].

Transfer of Loan Exposures – Compliance with RBI Directions – SBI’s sale of financial assets to ARC on February 10, 2023, under Section 5 of SARFAESI Act was challenged by the borrower. Court confirmed compliance with RBI’s Master Direction and upheld the transfer, noting borrower’s accounts were classified as SMA or NPA as required [Paras 74-77].

Procedural Obligations under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act – Borrower’s failure to respond to notice under Section 13(2) raised a rebuttable presumption of acceptance of default. Court emphasized the borrower’s burden to prove incorrect classification, which was not discharged [Paras 91-92].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Borrower’s writ petition dismissed – Classification as NPA and subsequent sale of financial assets by SBI to ARC upheld – Court found no violation of RBI guidelines or statutory provisions.
 

Land Assignment and Patta Validity – Irregularities and Fraudulent Transactions – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their thandaper accounts by the Tahsildar, contending they purchased the land from legitimate pattadars after due diligence – High Court upheld the cancellation, citing procedural irregularities and fraudulent actions in the issuance of the original patta – Petitioners directed to seek redressal against the vendors if aggrieved [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Law – Procedural Validity and Natural Justice – Tahsildar’s decision to cancel thandaper accounts challenged for alleged extraneous considerations – High Court found no procedural faults or violations of natural justice principles – Independent findings of Tahsildar after examining relevant records justified [Paras 9-12].

Further Investigation Directed – Special Investigation Team – Given the manipulations involved, the court directed a detailed enquiry by the Special Investigation Team constituted as per previous court directions – Appropriate action to be taken against officials and others involved in fraudulent transactions [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Thandaper cancellations upheld – Further probe and action ordered by the Special Investigation Team.
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Convictions upheld for appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, and 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC – Involvement in conspiracy and unlawful assembly proven – Evidence from eyewitnesses deemed credible despite minor inconsistencies – Injuries sustained by deceased correlated with witness testimony and forensic reports – Appeals dismissed, confirming convictions and sentences – Court highlighted importance of corroborative evidence and upheld procedural propriety of trial court [Paras 1-57].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Eyewitness testimonies deemed reliable despite minor discrepancies – Court noted that minor variations in accounts do not undermine overall credibility – Presence of street lights confirmed witness capability to observe incident – Discrepancies in minor details found not to impact core facts of the case [Paras 33-38].

Injuries and Forensic Evidence – Autopsy confirmed multiple fatal injuries – Correlation between weapon marks and injuries established – Presence of human blood on weapons and clothes confirmed involvement of appellants – Procedural lapses in forensic analysis noted but deemed non-fatal to prosecution’s case [Paras 19-20].

Conspiracy and Unlawful Assembly – Conspiracy inferred from the sequence of events and coordinated actions of appellants – Formation of unlawful assembly with common intent to murder established – Non-examination of peripheral witnesses not fatal to prosecution’s case – Court emphasized the contextual understanding of common object under Section 149 IPC [Paras 39-46].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Convictions and sentences of appellants affirmed – Procedural and evidentiary aspects upheld by High Court [Para 49].