Indian Judiciary is being criticized by all in the recent past. The media can criticize the judiciary and make it a news item using the general anger of the people on the Justice Delivery Mechanism in this country. But, in my opinion, many legal professionals, respected citizens and the respected judges too criticize the judiciary as it will cause a serious damage to the society if the judiciary and especially Higher Judiciary are not functioning as expected or as functioned in the past.

In 2010 Budget, infrastructure bonds were announced as one of the tax saving options to assessees whereby under section 80CCF of the Indian Income tax Act, investment upto Rs 20,000 in notified infrastructure bonds was allowed tax benefit by way of reduction from total taxable income. This is over and above Rs one lakh tax benefit available under sections 80C, 80CCC and 80 CCD.

I am very happy to listen to the news pertaining to the approval of the cabinet to the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010. I believe that it becomes law very soon. I know that it will not be easy to deal with the issue of corruption in Higher Judiciary even after the proposed law, but, it will be a good beginning. The judiciary in this country has enjoyed so much respect in the past and it has started degrading day-by-day and there is an urgent need to restore the lost dignity.

Despite the effort made by the legislature to keep the recovery of debts by the Bank very simple and clear when the debt is secured, there exist few complications in law dealing with the recovery of secured debt under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The constitutional validity of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act were challenged before the Constitutional Courts and the courts have made it very clear that SARFAESI Act, 2002 is constitutionally valid though certain provisions required a re-look. Initially, when the act came to force, many writ petitions were filed challenging the action initiated by the Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002

The Honourable Punjab and Haryana High court has held in an important decision in the case of State of Punjab & others. Vs. M/s Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. (decided on 24/08/2010) reversing the decision of the Punjab VAT Tribunal that no input tax credit will be available on the purchase of Diesel used in generation of electric power for captive use in the factory under clause (i) of section 13(5).

I have read few judgments on a proceeding under section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 placing reliance on Company Law Board regulations and based on the procedural technicality. With great respect to the courts, I do strongly feel that the Company Law Board should not go technically in a proceeding under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Income shall be deemed to accrue in India if it accrues, directly or indirectly through or from transfer of a capital asset situated in India. However, the income from the transfer by a non?resident of any share or interest in a foreign company would not be considered as income, wherein at any time in twelve months preceding the transfer, the fair market value of the assets in India, owned, directly or indirectly, by the company, represent at least fifty per cent of the fair market value of all assets owned by the company.

According to Income-tax Act, 1961 “the Act” companies need to withhold tax under section 194H on amount of commission paid to its distributors/ agents or anyone else. Generally the companies selling goods through agents sell its product to agents at price less than market price, Now here arise the point of legal action, whether difference between the retail price (at which product is sold to end user) and the price at which product is transferred to agents is “discount” or “commission”. Income-tax authorities consider it to be commission to try cover such transactions under the ambit of section 194H and on the other hand companies consider it to be a discount. In recent times there flowed numerous judgements from various forums dealing on this issue, some against and some in favour of the assessee.

When the first draft of the Direct Taxes Code (DTC) was released in August 2009, the provision dealing with Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) was one of the most discussed and deliberated provision. It proposed to levy tax on the gross value of assets. There were certain drawbacks and limitations which were pointed out to the government, as a result of which, the government decided to reinstate the earlier regime of levying MAT on book profits. However, after reading the proposed MAT provision in conjunction with the entire code, one is left wondering whether it will turn out to be a boon or a bane to taxpayers in India.

The three judges – two Hindus and a Muslim – of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court who Thursday authored the long-awaited verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute: