Current Affairs

 DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (31 MARCH 2025)

by | Mar 31, 2025

ITAT on Kapil Dev’s tax exemption, SC on Article 311, Calcutta Bar on judicial transfer.

ITAT exempts Kapil Dev’s ₹1.5 crore benefit, SC rules on disciplinary authority, and Calcutta Bar opposes Justice DK Sharma’s transfer.

 DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (31 MARCH 2025)

ITAT RULES ₹1.5 CRORE ONE-TIME BENEFIT TO KAPIL DEV FROM BCCI AS TAX EXEMPT

CASE NAME: Kapil Dev Nikhanj vs. ACIT

The ITAT ruled that ₹1.5 crore received by Kapil Dev from BCCI as a one-time benefit for his cricketing services is tax-exempt under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that tax exemptions should be applied per law, regardless of an assessee’s initial declaration in tax returns.

LEGAL PROVISION 
  • The ruling is based on Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which exempts income received from a trust or institution registered under Section 12AA. ITAT also upheld Article 265 of the Constitution, reinforcing that tax collection must be lawful.

SOURCE – Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)

ART 311 DOESN’T REQUIRE APPOINTING AUTHORITY TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION: SC

CASE NAME: State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Rukma Kesh Mishra

The Supreme Court ruled that the appointing authority’s approval is required for dismissal but not for initiating disciplinary proceedings. It overturned the High Court’s ruling, stating that Jharkhand’s rules don’t mandate separate Chief Minister approval for charge sheets. The decision reinforces disciplinary procedures under Article 311(1) of the Constitution.

LEGAL PROVISION 
  • Article 311(1) of the Constitution: Protects civil servants from dismissal by a subordinate authority.
  • PV Srinivasa Sastry vs. Comptroller & Auditor General, 1993: Clarified that disciplinary proceedings need not be initiated solely by the appointing authority.
  • Relevant State Service Rules: Jharkhand’s rules permit disciplinary proceedings by superior officers.

SOURCE: Supreme Court of India

CALCUTTA BAR OPPOSES JUSTICE DK SHARMA’S TRANSFER TO CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

CASE NAME: Calcutta Bar Associations vs. Supreme Court Collegium (Request for Transfer Reconsideration)

Calcutta High Court’s Bar associations have urged CJI Sanjiv Khanna to reconsider the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to transfer Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma from Delhi High Court. Citing concerns over allegations and short tenure, they opposed his appointment, requesting instead the return of Calcutta judges serving elsewhere.

LEGAL PROVISION 
  • Article 222 of the Constitution of India: Grants the President, in consultation with the CJI, the power to transfer High Court judges.
  • Supreme Court Collegium System: Governs judicial appointments and transfers, ensuring independence and transparency in judicial administration.
  • Judicial Tenure & Effectiveness: Bar associations stress the need for meaningful judicial contributions, opposing transfers viewed as temporary placements.

SOURCE: Calcutta High Court

Also Read:   DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (29 MARCH 2025)

 

WRITTEN BY– ISHA SHARMA

EDITED BY – VISHAKHA KHATRI

Written By Vishakha Khatri

My name is Vishakha Khatri. I am an engineering graduate and a civil service aspirant with a passion for spreading knowledge about Indian polity. I believe that understanding our political system is crucial for every citizen, and I am committed to making this information accessible to everyone in my own easy way. Through my experiences in civil service preparation and my unique perspective as an engineering graduate, I hope to inspire and educate others on the importance of Indian polity.

Related Posts