Supreme Court of India

SC fines Litigant for filing Incomprehensible English Translation of Judgment

Renu Rani Shrivastava & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court Of India)

The reason for imposing costs on the petitioner is that on perusal of the translation filed by the petitioner, we find that the impugned judgment does not make out any head and tail. It is difficult to read much less to understand as to what the judgment contains....

Read More

SC rejects Bail plea of Rohit Tandon for alleged Possession & Conversion of Demonetized Notes

Rohit Tandon Vs. The Enforcement Directorate (Supreme Court of India)

While upholding the proceedings against Advocate Rohit Tandon, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the Delhi High Courts’ order denying bail for possession and conversion of Demonetized Currency....

Read More

SC held provisions of Section 45(1) of PMLA provision Imposing Twin Condition for granting Bail as unconstitutional

Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)

SC held that Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ...

Read More

Petition changing linking of Aadhaar with PAN withdrawn as issue already been decided by SC

Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India (Supreme Court of India)

Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by CPI Leader in which he challenged the provisions of section 139AA of the Income Tax Act,1961 which mandates linking of Aadhaar with PAN number for filing income tax returns (ITR). The petition was later withdrawn by the counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Sup...

Read More

S. 44BB Mobilisation fee for services related to extraction etc. of mineral oil in India

Sedco Forex International Inc Vs CIT (Supreme Court of India)

Section 44BB of the Act is a special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration of mineral oils. Its purpose was explained by the Department vide its Circular No. 495 dated September 22, 1987, namely,...

Read More

Lessee is liable to pay Service Tax despite Liability of Lessor: SC

Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Limited & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday held that the Government, though in the capacity of a lessor is liable to pay service tax on the rental income as per section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 despite the fact that the original liability lies on the lessor....

Read More

Low tax effect appeals: CBDT cannot issue circular having retrospective operation: SC

CIT Vs. Gemini Distilleries (Supreme Court)

The question raised in this batch of Appeals is as to whether the instructions/circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 9.2.2011 will have retrospective operation or not....

Read More

Judges cannot take up the matter on their own, unless allocated by Chief Justice of India: SC

Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms Vs Union of India and Another (Supreme Court of India)

Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches. Needless to say, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justic...

Read More

SC explains concept of fixed place of business, service PE and agency PE

ADIT Vs E-Funds IT Solution Inc (Supreme Court of India)

The Income Tax Act, in particular Section 90 thereof, does not speak of the concept of a PE. This is a creation only of the DTAA. By virtue of Article 7(1) of the DTAA, the business income of companies which are incorporated in the US will be taxable only in the US, unless it is found that they were PEs in India...

Read More

Share premium cannot be treated as capital employed for Section 35D: SC

M/s Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs CIT (Supreme Court of India)

The appellant contended therein that it had issued shares on a premium which, according to them, was a part of the capital employed in their business. The appellant, therefore, contended that it was on this basis it claimed the said deduction and was, therefore, entitled to claim the same under Section 35D of the Act. ...

Read More
Page 1 of 9212345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,533)
Company Law (3,483)
Custom Duty (6,692)
DGFT (3,524)
Excise Duty (4,055)
Fema / RBI (3,301)
Finance (3,517)
Income Tax (25,485)
SEBI (2,763)
Service Tax (3,289)