Former Delhi High Court Judge
NAME – R. V. Easwar
PROFESSION- Advocate, Judge
BORN – 29/04/1952
PLACE OF BIRTH – N/A
FATHER’S NAME – N/A
MOTHER’S NAME –Lakshmi Easwar
SPOUSE – N/A
SIBLINGS – N/A
CHILDREN – 1
EDUCATION –
B. Com from Madurai University (1971)
Associate Chartered Accountancy (1979)
LL.B. from Bangalore University (1974)
LL.M. in Human Rights & Environmental Law from Mumbai University (2000)
AWARDS – N/A
SPECIALISATION – Revenue laws, taxation (direct and indirect), foreign exchange laws, Company cases, matrimonial cases
COMMITTEE/PANEL HEADED- Chairman of a 10-Member Committee on Simplification of Income Tax Law provisions
BACKGROUND –
R.V. Easwar is a Senior Advocate in the Supreme Court of India. He has practiced in several branches including Income-tax, sales-tax, FERA, revenue laws, matrimonial matters, company law in Tribunals and High Courts.
While working as a judicial member in ITAT and Delhi High Court, he has given several landmark judgements in many areas of substantial and procedural law. In the legal world, he is renowned to be a great thinker capable of understanding the nuances of different laws and principles.
He was born on 29th April, 1952. His educational qualifications include B. Com from Madurai University in 1971, LL.B. from Bangalore University in 1974 and LL.M in Human Rights & Environmental Law from Mumbai University in 2000. He also completed the course of Associate Chartered Accountancy in 1979.
Easwar became an advocate on 9th July, 1975 and began his practice in Madras High Court in several branches mainly income-tax, sales-tax, FERA, revenue laws, matrimonial matters, company law in Tribunal and High Courts. In 1991, he joined as Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Later, he went on to become the Vice-President, Senior Vice-President and President of the ITAT in 2005,2009 and 2010 respectively. He was elevated as Judge of Delhi High Court on 17th October, 2011 where he sat in several jurisdictions including direct and indirect tax appeals & writs, criminal appeals, service matters and functioned as company judge for six months.
He was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court on 23rd April, 2015. In the same year, he was appointed as the Chairman of a 10-Member Committee to simplify the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He has also worked as the Chairman of the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel under the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs.
CAREER TIMELINE –
1975: Enrolled as an Advocate at Madras High Court
1991: Joined Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) as Judicial Member in Calcutta Bench
1991-2011: Worked in the ITAT Benches at Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi, Bangalore & Ahmedabad
2005: Promoted to become the Vice-President of the ITAT
2009: Became the Senior Vice-President of the ITAT
2010: Appointed as the President of the ITAT on 4th June, 2010
2011: Elevated as Judge of the Delhi High Court on 17th October, 2011. Retired in 2014
2015: Designated as a Senior Advocate by the Supreme Court on 23rd April, 2015. In the same year, he was appointed as the Chairman of a 10-Member Committee to simplify the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961
LAND MARK JUDGEMENTS –
Pranav Construction Co. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-
The facts of the case were that a partner of the company has paid money to various persons in form of cash for the purpose of providing security to partners and for getting the “tapories” vacated earlier. It was held that “Payment made by a builder for the purpose of providing security to partners or for getting the tapories vacated was allowable.
Though there being no direct evidence but there being circumstantial evidence supporting such payments”. This principle led to an insertion of an explanation to Section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 with retrospective effect by Finance Bill, 1988.
Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax-
This case examined the problem related to the deductibility of levy imposed by Department of Telecommunication (DOT). The tax authorities were influenced by specific opinions expressed by the CBDT and the Finance Minister. Easwar, stressing on the importance of judiciary, held the view that Executive should not be involved in the interpretation of law.
Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. National Association of Software and Services Companies-
In this case, it was questioned as to whether in order to avail the exemption from tax as a charitable trust, the trust can claim that monies spent abroad, though for the purpose of the trust, can amount to application of the income of the trust in India. The argument of the assessee that it amounted to application of income was rejected. This is important because there was no previous decision on this issue.
Deutsche Trustee Company Ltd. Vs Tulip Telcom Ltd.-
In this case, it was determined that the corporate debt restructuring scheme could not be stayed at the request of foreign bond holders because the scheme was aimed at the company’s revival, and staying the scheme even before the admission of the winding-up petition would amount to sounding the company’s death knell.
CONTROVERSIES – N/A
REMARKABLE ACHIEVEMENT- N/A