Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.
Judgment dated 1st February, 2021 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs. Spade Financial Services Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2842 of 2020 with Civil Appeal No. 3063 of 2020]
SLP on penalty for borrowing above Rs. 20000 dismissed by Supreme Court in the case of Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax where unaccounted money of the financer routed by the director through accounts of Assessee. Introduction Supreme Court in Vasan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 266 (SC) […]
Supreme Court has directed that the Tax Bar Association v State of Maharashtra pending in the Bombay High Court which challenges the very short tenure of 2 years for Members of Sales Tax Tribunal should be heard finally on 22.2.2021. This is in view of desperate situation of vacancies in the Tribunal.
Haryana Space Application Centre (Harsac) & Anr Vs Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court of India) We are of the view that the appointment of the Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana as the nominee arbitrator of HARSAC which is a Nodal Agency of the Government of Haryana, would be invalid under Section 12(5) of […]
Manish Kumar Vs Union of India (Supreme Court) The petitioners have approached Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They call in question Sections 3, 4 and 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act 2020. Court held as follows:- We uphold the impugned amendments. However, this is subject to the […]
Vellanki Frame Works Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Supreme Court) Supreme Court held that, we are clearly of the view that the claimed exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act has rightly been denied to the appellant and the High Court has been justified in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant. The High […]
The Mavilayi Service Coop Bank Ltd Vs. CIT (Supreme Court of India) Limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks i.e. which lend money to members of the public. Thus, if the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is now to be seen, what is clear from […]
State of Odisha & Ors. Vs Sunanda Mahakuda (Supreme Court of India) Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate impose costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates On Record Welfare Fund. The amount be deposited in four weeks. […]
IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Abhishek Khanna & Others (Supreme Court of India) Section 14 of the 1986 Act empowers the Consumer Fora to redress the deficiency of service by issuing directions to the Builder, and compensate the consumer for the loss or injury caused by the opposite party, or discontinue the unfair or […]
