The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended Justice Manmohan from the tax bench of Delhi High Court as a Supreme Court Judge.
The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 28 November 2024 deliberated on and discussed the names of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of the High Courts eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court
Justice Manmohan was appointed as a Judge of the High Court of Delhi on 13th March 2008 and has been functioning as the Chief Justice of that High Court since 29 September 2024. Mr. Justice Manmohan stands at Sl. No. 2 in the combined all-India seniority of High Court Judges and he is the senior-most Judge in the High Court of Delhi. While recommending his name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that, at present, the Bench of Supreme Court is represented by only one Judge from the High Court of Delhi.
The Supreme Court Collegium has, therefore, unanimously recommended that Mr. Justice Manmohan be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
Justice Manmohan’s Contribution In Indian Taxation: Know Top 10 Prominent Judgement
Non-Compliance Of Notification Conditions For Export Of Banned Non-Basmati White Rice; Delhi High Court Dismisses Exporter’s Appeal
Case Title: VI Exports India Private Limited Versus Union Of India
The Delhi High Court while dismissing the rice exporter’s appeal, upheld the decision of the single bench holding that the exporter cannot be permitted to export 11,000 MT of banned non- basmati white rice, due to the non-fulfilment of the conditions entitling it to an exemption from the ban on export imposed by Notification bearing no. 20/2023 dated 20th July, 2023 issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of India.
The bench of the Acting Chief Justice Manmohan And Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that keeping in view the objective of the Central Government in imposing the ban with immediate effect was to avert a food crisis in the country, a strict compliance of the exemption conditions would further the intent of the Notification.
CA Certificate Not Matching Details On ICAI Portal As Per UDIN, Delhi High Court Upholds Disqualification By IRCTC
Case Title: M/S Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Versus Union Of India
The Delhi High Court has upheld the disqualification as the CA Certificate did not match details on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) portal as per the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN).
The bench of the then Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has observed that the discrepancy has arisen on account of the non-mention of the certified information by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant in the corresponding UDIN certificate in the field under the heading ‘Figures/Particulars’. With respect to the UDIN certificate filled in by the Chartered Accountant on the ICAI website, the Chartered Accountant has left the field blank, and consequently, there is no certified information available in the UDIN certificate.
No Material Found On Search, Income Tax Additions Can’t Be Made On Presumption: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus Mamta Agarwal
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Preetam Singh Arora held that if no incriminating material is found during the course of the search, then no addition can be made in the assessment under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act.
The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department carried out a search and seizure operation against M/s K.R. Pulp & Papers Limited under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at various residential and business premises. The company was stated to be managed and controlled by Madho Gopal Agarwal, Raj Gopal Agarwal, and Gopal Agarwal. The statements of Gopal Agarwal were recorded, and the statements of Madho Gopal Agarwal were recorded during the post-search inquiry.
Benefit Of Scholarship To Poor Students Was Not Confined To Students Of Particular Community: Delhi High Court Allows Exemption To Charitable Institution
Case Title: CIT (E) Versus Hamdard National Foundation (India)
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has allowed the income tax exemption to the charitable institution on the grounds that the benefit of scholarships to poor students was not confined to students of a particular community.
The appellant/department has raised the issue of whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee, ignoring the fact that the assessee had paid most of the scholarship amount to the students of a particular religious community, which is a clear violation of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court Allows Deduction To PVR On Difference Between Market Price & Issue Price Of ESOP
Case Title: PVR Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax
The Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal of PVR Ltd. and allowed the deduction on the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to employees of the appellant company under ESOP and ESPS and the prevailing market price of the stock.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Biocon Ltd. and has observed that an assessee is entitled to claim a deduction under Section 37(1) if the expenditure has been incurred. The expression “expenditure” will also include a loss, and therefore, the issuance of shares at a discount where the assessee absorbs the difference between the price at which they are issued and the market value of the shares would also be expenditure incurred for the purposes of Section 37(1). The primary object is not to waste capital but to earn profits by securing the consistent services of the employees. Therefore, it cannot be construed as a short receipt of capital.
Non consideration of detailed reply to show notice submitted after stipulated time, Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Order
Case Title: Divya Capital One Private Limited Vs. ACIT
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has quashed the reassessment order, alleging income of more than Rs one lakh crore having escaped assessment on the grounds of violation of natural justice.
Benefit of Compounding Offence under Income Tax Act can’t be denied for non-acquittal from Criminal Charges: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Jai Singh Goel Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the benefit of compounding of offence under Income Tax Act cannot be denied for non-acquittal from Criminal Charges.
The division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Manmohan has held that the conviction having been set aside by the Special Judge, application seeking compounding of the offence cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner/assessee has not been acquitted of the criminal charges.
Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 115BBE Of The Income Tax Act
Case Title: Triveni Enterprises Limited Versus ITO
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna has observed that Statutory Acts and their provisions are not to be declared unconstitutional on the fanciful theory that power would be exercised in an unrealistic fashion or in a vacuum or on the ground that there is an apprehension of misuse of Statutory Provision or possibility of abuse of power. It must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the administration and application of a particular law would be done “not with an evil eye and an unequal hand.”.
Delhi High Court Quashes Assessment Order Passed Without Issuing Draft Assessment Order
Case Title: RMSI Private Limited Versus NaFAC
The Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment order passed without issuing a show cause notice or a draft assessment order which has been mandated under Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla has directed the department to issue a show-cause notice within four weeks.
Time Of 8 Hours To File Reply To Show Cause Notice, Not Reasonable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Rahul Biala Vs ITO
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma has held that the time of eight hours to file a reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective. The assessee could not have provided relevant information and documents to establish his case in such a short period of time.
The petitioner/assessee submitted that the reasonable time was not given to file a reply to the show cause notice, which was issued only on March 30th, 2022 at 16:21 p.m., effectively giving the petitioner only eight hours’ time to file a reply to the show cause notice.
