List of Current Affairs

Source: Patna High Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar in the case of X. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) allowed the appeal of a juvenile appellant, setting aside the Children Court's order that had denied bail.  

• The court emphasized that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) makes bail a rule for all juveniles, irrespective of the nature of the alleged offence. 

What was the Background of X. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) Case? 

Incident Details: 

• On September 4, 2023, at 7:00 PM, a 17-year-old boy allegedly enticed a 3-year-old girl from her house to his residence and sexually assaulted her. 
• The child returned home weeping, claiming the appellant had undressed her, with bloodstained clothes and carrying chips. 
• FIR was lodged three days later on September 7, 2023, under Sections 342, 363, 366(A), 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 

Legal Proceedings: 

• The Juvenile Justice Board declared the accused a juvenile (17 years and 17 days old at time of offense). 
• After preliminary assessment finding him mentally competent, the case transferred to Children's Court under Section 18(3) of JJ Act, 2015 for trial as adult. 
• Children's Court rejected bail application on April 16, 2024 
• The appellant remained detained in Observation Home for approximately one year and ten months. 

Evidence Analysis: 

• Medical Examination: Victim's hymen found intact with no spermatozoa detected, contradicting prosecution allegations. 
• Social Investigation Report: Described appellant as obedient student from educated family, religious, no bad habits, good community relations. 
• Background Context: Report suggested false implication due to land dispute and previous enmity; victim's father had borrowed Rs. 1 lakh from appellant's brother. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• On Juvenile Bail Rights: Justice Jitendra Kumar emphasized that "Section 12 of the Act overrides the bail provisions as contained in the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973" and "there is no classification, whatsoever, provided in Section 12 of the Act, 2015 in regard to grant of bail." The court clarified that bail is available to all juveniles without discrimination, even those above 16 years accused of heinous offences. 
• On Reformative Philosophy: The judge strongly stated: "Under the JJ Act, 2015, a child in conflict with law is not expected to be treated as an adult offender" and that courts must adopt a "fundamentally different approach" focused on reform and rehabilitation. He warned that "The society would get ruined if such children are dealt with punitive approach." 
• On Children's Court's Error: Justice Kumar found that the Children's Court "has not taken pain to peruse the Social Investigation Report" and made findings contrary to evidence. He noted: "There is also no proof that after release, the appellant may go into association of criminals. Only conjecture and surmises...would not do." 
• On Case Merit and Evidence: The court observed prosecution weaknesses including delayed FIR, lack of medical evidence support, and questioned child witness reliability, noting "possibility of tutoring the child would be a serious impediment." 
• Final Order: Justice Kumar allowed the appeal, directing release on Rs. 10,000 bail with conditions for continued education and no criminal association, finding that prolonged detention was counterproductive to rehabilitation. 

What is Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015? 

About:  

• Section 12 deals with the mandatory provision of bail to juveniles in conflict with law, establishing a fundamental right that overrides general criminal law provisions and ensures that children are not detained in adult prisons or police lock-ups. 

Key Provisions: 

Sub-section (1) - Mandatory Bail Principle: 

• Juveniles accused of any offense (bailable or non-bailable) must be released on bail when arrested/detained or brought before a Board. 
• This overrides provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or any other law. 
• Bail can be with or without surety, or juvenile can be placed under supervision of Probation Officer or care of fit institution/person. 
• Three limited exceptions where bail can be denied:  
  • Release likely to bring juvenile into association with known criminals. 
  • Release would expose juvenile to moral, physical or psychological danger. 
  • Release would defeat the ends of justice. 

Sub-section (2) - Police Station Level Protection: 

• If police officer-in-charge doesn't release juvenile on bail, the juvenile must be kept only in observation home (not jail). 
• This is a temporary arrangement until juvenile can be brought before the Board. 

Sub-section (3) - Board Level Safeguards: 

• If Board doesn't grant bail, juvenile cannot be sent to prison. 
• Board must send juvenile to observation home or place of safety. 
• Duration specified in the order during pendency of inquiry. 

Fundamental Principle: Bail is the rule for juveniles, detention is the exception with strict conditions and child-friendly safeguards. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited (2025) delivered a split verdict on whether the twelve-month outer time limit under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) applies to proceedings under Section 144C involving eligible assesses. 

What was the Background of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited. (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from appeals filed by the Income Tax Department challenging a Bombay High Court decision that held final assessment orders passed after Section 153(3) limitation period were time-barred. 
• The Respondent-Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited was a foreign entity providing offshore drilling services in India for AY 2014-15. 
• The company filed its return declaring a loss and opted out of the presumptive taxation regime under Section 44BB. 
• The Assessing Officer rejected the books and computed income at 10% of gross receipts under Section 44BB (1). 
• The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld this decision, but the ITAT set aside the order on 4th October 2019 and remanded the case to the AO for fresh adjudication. 
• Under Section 153(3), the AO had 12 months from the end of the financial year to pass a fresh assessment order, i.e., by 31st March 2021. 
• Due to COVID-19, the deadline was extended to 30th September 2021 under the Taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. 
• On remand, the AO issued a draft assessment order on 28th September 2021, just before the extended deadline, but no final assessment order was passed before 30th September 2021. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Justice SC Sharma's Judgment (Allowing IT Department's Appeals): 

• The Court held that specific timelines under Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3), and the High Court erred in quashing assessments on limitation grounds. 
• Justice Sharma reasoned that Parliament, through non-obstante clauses in sub-sections (4) and (13) of Section 144C, intended to exclude Section 153's outer limit for DRP cases. 
• "If I take the view that the entire procedure prescribed and contemplated in terms of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act must be subsumed within the overall time period prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, I am of the opinion that it would result in a complete catastrophe for recovering lost tax." 
• The Court emphasized that timelines under Section 144C are independent and operate in addition to Section 153 timelines, with final assessment orders required within one month of draft orders or within 11 months if objections are filed before the DRP. 

Justice BV Nagarathna's Judgment (Disagreeing with Justice Sharma): 

• Justice Nagarathna held that while Section 144C prescribes self-contained procedures for eligible assessees, the overall limitation period under Section 153(3) continues to apply, including in remand situations. 
• She concluded that the assessments were time-barred and directed acceptance of originally filed returns, without prejudice to Revenue's right to take other permissible legal steps. 
• "In my view, even in such a case, the assessment has to be concluded within twelve months as stipulated in Section 153(3) of the Act where there has been remand by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer under Section 254 of the Act." 
• The Court noted that narrower limitation periods in Section 144C subsections (4) and (13) ensure compliance with Section 153(3)'s overall twelve-month limitation. 

Due to divergent opinions, the Court directed the Registry to place matters before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to reconsider the issues. 

What is Section 144C of the Income Tax Act? 

Purpose & Scope: 

• Establishes a dispute resolution mechanism for eligible assesses (foreign companies and transfer pricing cases). 
• Requires draft assessment orders before final orders for variations prejudicial to assesses interest. 

Draft Order Process: 

• Assessing Officer must forward draft order to eligible assessee for proposed variations (effective from October 1, 2009). 
• Assessee has 30 days to either accept variations or file objections with both DRP and Assessing Officer. 

Assessment Completion: 

• If assessee accepts or files no objections, Assessing Officer completes assessment based on draft order. 
• Final assessment order must be passed within one month of acceptance/expiry of objection period (overrides Section 153 timelines). 

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Process: 

• DRP comprises three Commissioners of Income Tax constituted by the Board. 
• DRP issues directions to Assessing Officer after considering draft order, objections, evidence, and reports. 
• DRP can confirm, reduce, or enhance proposed variations but cannot set aside variations or order further enquiry. 
• The majority opinion prevails if DRP members differ. 

Timeline Requirements: 

• DRP must issue directions within 9 months from end of month when draft order was forwarded. 
• Assessing Officer must complete assessment within one month of receiving DRP directions (overrides Section 153). 
• No further hearing opportunity provided to assessee after DRP directions. 

Key Features: 

• DRP directions are binding on Assessing Officer. 
• Both assessee and Assessing Officer must be given hearing opportunity on prejudicial directions. 
• DRP may conduct further enquiries or cause enquiries to be made by income-tax authorities. 
• Board empowered to make rules for efficient DRP functioning and expeditious disposal.