Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Srigdhaa Beverages (Supreme Court) 1. M/s. SB Beverages, owner of a piece of land, failed to repay a loan to Syndicate Bank (creditor). 2. To this measure, on 25.05.2017 the Bank (secured creditor) brought the property to auction under the SARFAESI Act. 3. The land […]
In re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers (Supreme Court) We take suo motu cognizance of problems and miseries of migrant labourers who had been stranded in different parts of the country. The newspaper reports and the media reports have been continuously showing the unfortuanate and miserable conditions of migrant labourers walking on-foot and cycles […]
Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule Vs Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari (Supreme Court) (1) (a) The co-operative banks registered under the State legislation and multi-State level co-operative societies registered under the MSCS Act, 2002 with respect to ‘banking’ are governed by the legislation relatable to Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of […]
An arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. Construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do.
South East Asia Marine Engineering and Construction Ltd. Vs Oil India Ltd. (Supreme Court) It is a settled position that a Court can set aside the award only on the grounds as provided in the Arbitration Act as interpreted by the Courts. Recently, this Court in Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019 […]
Assistant Commissioner Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supreme Court Conclusion: Power of Supreme Court & High Court under Articles 142 and 226 to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation however the […]
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supreme Court) In Challenge : – Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. Constitution of India – Art-226 – Writ Jurisdiction bypassing the statutory provisions – remedy against the assessment order […]
It is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
Payments made to the Non-Resident Sports Associations represented their income which accrued or arose or was deemed to have accrued or arisen in India. Consequently, assessee was liable to deduct Tax at Source in terms of Section 194E.
Uptill AY 2016-17, if a scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the return is not required to be processed u/s 143(1) for grant of refund to the assessee however, from AY 2017-18 & onwards, a different regime is prescribed by Parliament by inserting section 241-A which required separate recording of satisfaction on part of AO that having regard to the issue of notice u/s 143(2), the grant of refund was likely to adversely affect the revenue. The withholding of refund required the previous approval of the PCIT with reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus, demands in respect of earlier assessment years including the liability as a result of order dated 28.12.2019 being outstanding, the respondents would be entitled to invoke the requisite power under Section 245 to set off the amount of refund payable in respect of AY 2014-15 against tax remaining payable.
