Legal Reference Library

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Though the above claim was denied by the AO, the ITAT allowed the claim on second appeal filed by the assessee. Though the departm...

In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs M/S.PATTU AGENCIES, the appeal was preferred before  Hon'ble Kerala High Court against order of the trial court with the primary object of the insurer being that the change of address of the insured property had not been intimated to the insurer. The Hon'ble High Court rejecting the ground for disallowing the claim held "It is true that a policy can be avoided for misrepresentation or non-disclosure. However, the misrepresentation or non-disclosure should be a material one and it must have induced the Insurance Company to make the policy in favour of the insured. The non-disclosure or misrepresentation should have induced the insurer to enter into the contract. There must be a specific case that there was inducement to issue a policy relying on the facts disclosed by the insurer and that there was non-disclosure or misrepresentation. The test is whether the insurer would have made a different decision had the facts been correctly disclos...

The Supreme Court in Harjas Rai Makhija vs..Pushparani Jain, has held that a mere concealment of material facts or non-disclosure, without intent to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive, would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent. The appellant in this case had filed a suit in 2002 alleging that a decree was obtained by a plaintiff in another case, (which had ultimately reached the Apex Court which had confirmed the same) in a fraudulent manner and is void and not worthy of being executed. That suit was dismissed by the district court as well as high court. A bench comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel rejected his contentions and observed that he had an opportunity to prove the allegation of fraud when he filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. The court said: “When there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it mus...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Branch Manager, LIC of India v. Jyothi Sudhir MANU/CF/0511/2016 20.10.2016 Consumer Effect of mis-representation on contract is same as that of non-disclosure; it affords ground for avoiding contract to aggrieved party In facts of present case, Husband of complainant obtained an insurance policy namely Money Plus Plan from Petitioner corporation, insuring his life to extent of Rs. 4 lacs. In the proposal form submitted by him, the assured was required to answer certain questions with respect to the state of his health. Assured took a specific stand in proposal form submitted by him that he had not consulted any medical practitioner requiring treatment for more than a week and he was not suffering from Diabetes, High BP or any other disease. A perusal of discharge summary issued by Yenepoya Hospital, would show that, assured was admitted in aforesaid hospital on 13th July, 2007 and his ailment was diagnosed as Hypertension, D...