The issue was whether reassessment beyond four years was valid without failure to disclose material facts. The courts held that all relevant details were already disclosed during original assessment, making reopening without jurisdiction.
An acquittal based on the benefit of doubt did not confer upon a candidate an automatic right to appointment in public service. Mere involvement of a person in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may become sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for such candidate to be offered employment.
SC held that the Air Force insurance society qualifies as “State” under Article 12 because its administration, control, and functioning are closely linked with government authorities.
The issue was whether indirect export through intermediaries qualifies for exemption. The Supreme Court upheld denial, ruling that direct export is required for excise benefit.
The issue was whether telecom interconnect charges qualify as royalty. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court view that such payments are not taxable as royalty.
Supreme Court held that section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 putting an age limit of three months on the age of the adoptive child, for the adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit is violative of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution respectively. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
The SC declined to interfere with the High Courts order granting IGST refund despite return filing error. It upheld that refund cannot be denied when export and tax payment are undisputed.
The Court upheld acquittal after finding that the accused was given an impermissible third option during search. It ruled that non-compliance with Section 50 vitiated the trial and made recovery unreliable.
Supreme Court held that Bank couldn’t act contrary to mandate given by customer since funds belonged to the customer. Thus, act of Bank in transferring the funds to the owner of the vessel cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court held that diversion of funds raised through preferential allotment for purposes other than those stated in offer document/prospectus/notice establishes as fraud and the same cannot be cured by consequent shareholder ratification.
