The issue before the Court was whether a memorandum of settlement required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/ was transferred in favour of the plaintiff
whether the office which is established merely for the sake of communication is covered under the character of Permanent Establishment (PE) under India-Korea DTAA?
The issue under consideration is whether the non-compete fee could be taxed under any provision other than Section 28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Supreme Court states that they have find from the record that the learned Single Judge had no reasonable justification to hold that the petitioner had passed a whimsical order and that it suffered from malice in fact and in law.
Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. (Supreme Court) In a recent judgment on 27th July 2020, the Supreme Court of India has concluded it shall be necessary to take note of the factors like career prospects and future advancement in life while applying the multiplier method to calculate that while applying the multiplier for providing compensation […]
Shiv Raj Gupta Vs CIT (Supreme Court) The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT1 held that the compensation attributable to a negative/restrictive covenant is a capital receipt. The Apex Court reiterated that the test of commercial expediency would have to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman […]
SC confirmed One Year Rigorous Imprisonment for Revenue Officer for Demanding Bribe of Rs 300
In a recent judgement dated 23 July, 2020 in the case of Sunil Rathee & Ors. vs The State of Haryana & Ors., the Apex Court had an opportunity to explain the circumstances when cases can be transferred from High Courts to itself under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that ‘dispute’ for the purpose of Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must truly exist in the facts and spurious, hypothetical and illusory
Whether interest will be levied on availment of excessive subsidies of 25% under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme-2003 until the whole excessive subsidies are recovered?
