In response to Appeal Filed by Central Government against the Gujarat High Court Judgment in the case of AAP And Co. Vs Union of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court stays the Gujarat HC judgement which states that GSTR-3B is not a return under Section 39 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
Genpact India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Supreme Court) Section 115QA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates that in case of buy back of shares referred to in the provisions of said Section, the company shall be liable to pay additional income tax at the rate of 20% on the distributed income. Any determination in […]
Notice under section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by AO was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was also issued against amalgamating company. This was a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in section 292B. Accordingly, assessment order framed in the name of non-existing person was void ab initio.
Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs ACIT (Supreme Court) Condonation of delay in filing appeal(s) against common order dated 29.12.2003 passed by Income Tax Appellate Authority being barred by 1754 days.: If the stand of the Applicant in the Affidavit that he had no knowledge about the passing of the order is not expressly refuted by […]
Rojer Mathew Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court) 1. Leave granted. BRIEF BACKGROUND: 2. In the present batch of cases, the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 and of the rules framed in consonance has been assailed. While it would be repetitious to reproduce the pleadings of each case […]
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs Kay Pan Fragrance Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) In the first place, we find force in the submission canvassed by the State that a complete mechanism is predicated in the Act and the Rules for release and disposal of the seized goods and for which reason, the […]
The resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal on 02.04.2018 proposed an upfront payment of INR 35,000 crores towards resolution of the debt of INR 49,213 crores of financial creditors. This was buttressed by a letter of commitment from Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank. From this upfront cash recovery, unsecured financial creditors were to be paid only an aggregate amount of 5% of their admitted claims.
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs CBI (Supreme Court) (I.A. No. 63168/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., I.A. No.71678/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and I.A. No. 66253/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) 1. Allowed subject to just exception. MA 58/2019 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 225/2018 (PIL-W) (I.A. No. 182576/2018 – CORRECTION OF MISTAKES IN THE JUDGMENT) […]
Transparency and openness in judicial appointments juxtaposed with confidentiality of deliberations remain one of the most delicate and complex areas. Clearly, the position is progressive as well as evolving as steps have been taken to make the selection and appointment process more transparent and open. Notably, there has been a change after concerns were expressed on disclosure of the names and the reasons for those who had not been approved. The position will keep forging new paths by taking into consideration the experiences of the past and the aspirations of the future
Pr. CIT (Central) Vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) 1. The present Application has been filed for Recall of the Judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 2463 of 2019, on the ground that the Applicant – Company was not served with the Notice of the SLP at the […]
