While upholding the proceedings against Advocate Rohit Tandon, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the Delhi High Courts’ order denying bail for possession and conversion of Demonetized Currency.
SC held that Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court questioned the maintainability of the petition filed by CPI Leader in which he challenged the provisions of section 139AA of the Income Tax Act,1961 which mandates linking of Aadhaar with PAN number for filing income tax returns (ITR). The petition was later withdrawn by the counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Supreme Court […]
Section 44BB of the Act is a special provision for computing profits and gains in connection with the business of exploration of mineral oils. Its purpose was explained by the Department vide its Circular No. 495 dated September 22, 1987, namely,
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday held that the Government, though in the capacity of a lessor is liable to pay service tax on the rental income as per section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 despite the fact that the original liability lies on the lessor.
The question raised in this batch of Appeals is as to whether the instructions/circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 9.2.2011 will have retrospective operation or not.
Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches. Needless to say, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.
The Income Tax Act, in particular Section 90 thereof, does not speak of the concept of a PE. This is a creation only of the DTAA. By virtue of Article 7(1) of the DTAA, the business income of companies which are incorporated in the US will be taxable only in the US, unless it is found that they were PEs in India
The appellant contended therein that it had issued shares on a premium which, according to them, was a part of the capital employed in their business. The appellant, therefore, contended that it was on this basis it claimed the said deduction and was, therefore, entitled to claim the same under Section 35D of the Act.
SC held that appellants were entitled to refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess which was paid along with excise duty once the excise duty itself was exempted from levy
