Learn about Supreme Court’s decision regarding extension of limitation period for filing written statements during Covid-19 pandemic. Analysis and implications.
Supreme Court held that an aggrieved party is entitled to receive compensation from the party who has broken the contract whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused by the breach.
Supreme Court decision: Criminal charges for late self-assessment tax payment to persist despite Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme approval. Get insights into the ruling.
The Supreme Court stays the service tax order against HDFC Bank related to renting of immovable property for commercial purposes. Get insights into the case.
ACIT Vs Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court of India has recently made a disposition in the case of ACIT (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) v. Vahanvati Consultants Private Limited. The court’s decision has specific implications for the parties involved, and this article will provide an overview of the case […]
Supreme Court held that dividend received by the Indian company having permanent establishment in Oman is not taxable in India in terms of Article 25 read with Article 8 (bis) of the Omani Tax Laws
Supreme Court held that a proviso cannot militate against the intention of the main provision in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act and thus a proviso cannot extend the limitation period which is fixed under the main provision.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in “exceptional circumstances” if a corporate debtor is an MSME, it is not necessary for promoters to compete with other resolution applicants to retain control of the corporate debtor.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Enforcement Officer appointed under Section 3 of FERA, 1973 was authorized to file complaint under provisions of FERA even after getting repealed by the virtue of S. 49 of FEMA under the heading ‘Repeal and Savings’.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7, for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly.
