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 […]
This is with reference to the judgment pronounced by Honorable Supreme Court of India in case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Bhayana Builders P Ltd dated 19th February 2019 whereby the apex court has considered/analyzed the arguments given the Revenue legal counsel on the aspect of valuation of taxable services under Service Tax where […]
High Court was not justified in its remarks against the petitioner and in issuing the directions which it has issued. The High Court, in the course of its judgment has issued a slew of directions including: (i) The necessity of weeding out ‘deadwood’; (ii) imposition of costs of Rs. 1.5 lakhs which are to be apportioned among two officers, out of them being the petitioner; (iii) Making an adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner; and (iv) Denial of promotion including monetary benefits to the petitioner.
This is with reference to Supreme Court judgement dated 11-04-2019 in case of Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd where the transaction between the Indian entity and parent company with respect to deputation of its employees in India was discussed and the decision pronounced by the CESTAT (Delhi) was upheld by the apex court. Facts of […]
In the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. The SC has explained the judicial effect of the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition, filed under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that RBI Circular directing bank to take recourse to Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is ultra vires to Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act.
