Union of India & Others. v/s V.V.F. Limited & Others (Supreme Court) Promissory Estoppel on Govt. Clarifications, applied retrospectively in the Public Interest (Supreme Court 3 Judge Bench Judgment) Decided on 22.4.2020 Questions Framed (Important Points) :- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the subsequent notification No. 16 of 2008 dated […]
Subsequent notifications/industrial policies were issued in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they did not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies and therefore could not be said to be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the same was to be applied retrospectively and they could not be said to be irrational and/or arbitrary.
In our view this is not a fair or proper procedure. If not in the first notice, at least at the time of furnishing the reasons the assessee should have been informed that the revenue relied upon the second proviso. The assessee must be put to notice of all the provisions on which the revenue relies upon.
There is no doubt that Medical Oxygen IP and Nitrous Oxide IP are medicines used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings falling within the ambit of Section 3(b)(i) of the 1940 Act. SC hold that Medical Oxygen IP and Nitrous Oxide IP fall within the ambit of Section 3(b)(i) of the 1940 Act and are consequently covered in Entry 88 of the 2005 Act.
All measures that have been and shall be taken by this Court and by the High Courts, to reduce the need for the physical presence of all stakeholders within court premises and to secure the functioning of courts in consonance with social distancing guidelines and best public health practices shall be deemed to be lawful;
SC held that, under the sale agreement, the Taxpayer had granted mere license to Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd. which cannot be equated with possession of property which necessarily requires control over the property and not mere occupation and, hence, provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were not attracted.
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) We expect the Media (print, electronic or social) to maintain a strong sense of responsibility and ensure that unverified news capable of causing panic is not disseminated. A daily bulletin by the Government of India through all media avenues including social media and forums […]
Whether assessee’s purchase of its own shares, which was not in accordance with sec.77A of the Companies Act, would amount to dividends within the meaning of sec.2(22)(d) or 2(22)(a), and consequently, liable for tax u/s. 115-O in the hands of the assessee company. Whether the company had failed to remit the taxes within the stipulated period, the company was ‘deemed to be an assessee in default’, u/s. 115-Q. W
Centre For Accountability And Systemic Change (CASC) has filed a petition in Supreme Court for direction to Ministry Of Home Affairs/Central Government to declare national financial emergency in the Country in the wake of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Relevant text of the Petition is as follows:- MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. Writ Petition in public interest […]
Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked where it is found on facts that the lesser amount stated in the return filed by the assessee is a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assessee. The burden of proving that the assessee has so […]
