As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the High Court by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the High Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that this Court by order dated 27.5.2019 passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 4430/2019 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court in a similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs Ms Aswini Homeo Pharmacy (Supreme Court) The fact that the respondent is using the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia referred to earlier in manufacturing of the hair oil has not been traversed by the appellant. Neither has the Commissioner dealt with that contention of the respondent nor was such a plea taken before […]
CIT Vs. M/s Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The conversion of outstanding interest into loan does not amount to actual payment of the interest in order to qualify for deduction in view of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 3C to Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961. FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT […]
Supreme Court has upheld Telangana High Court judgment in the case of P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs Union of India & Ors. that held that a person can be arrested by the competent authority in cases of Goods and Service Tax (GST) evasion.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Yes Bank Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The main issue involved in this appeal, as rightly taken note of by the High Court in para 6, was with regard to the applicability of Section 35-D of the Act to the respondent assessee(Bank). It was, however, not decided. In our view, the […]
Mangathai Ammal (Died) through LRs Vs Rajeswari & Others (Supreme Court) In the case of Jaydayal Poddar it is held that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be sold. In P. Leelavathi it is […]
It is also observed that they did not disclose the value of the free supply material in their ST-3 returns. This is not the case where the issue was under litigation or there is any interpretation of law involved for the reason that all the judgments relied upon by the appellant are on different facts and as per the Works Contract Rules, the provision is clear that the material used whether supplied for consideration or otherwise, should be included, therefore there is no ambiguity in the legal provision.
Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah PCIT Vs Nokia India Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court of India) In PCIT vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 3450 Of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.32222 of 2017), decided on 08.04.2019], appeal was filed against the final judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 passed by […]
CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Dass (Supreme Court) Facts of the case Revenue is in appeal against Delhi High Court order holding that proviso to section 142(2C) authorizing AO to extend the time limit suo moto w.e.f. 01-04-2008 is prospective in nature and therefore AO can extend time for special audit on application of assessee and not […]
PR. CIT Vs A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) There lies a distinction between the questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal and the questions framed by the Court. The questions, which are proposed by the appellant, fall under Section 260A (2) (c) of the Act whereas the questions framed by […]
