The Supreme Court examined whether fees paid to foreign speakers through booking agents attract service tax as event management service. It held that speaker booking does not amount to planning, organizing, or managing an event and is therefore not taxable under that category.
The Court ruled that Section 17A lawfully requires prior approval before investigating decisions taken in official capacity. It clarified that the provision balances anti-corruption enforcement with protection against vexatious probes.
The Supreme Court held that gains arising from the sale of shares of a foreign company deriving substantial value from Indian assets are taxable in India. The ruling confirms that indirect transfer provisions override treaty claims when Indian assets are the real source of value.
The Court ruled that refunds arising from statutory pre-deposits must follow the specific appellate provisions, holding the High Court’s reliance on the general refund section unnecessary.
The Court examined whether procedural rigidity and expired panels could defeat disability rights. It held that denial of employment without reasonable accommodation violates constitutional guarantees and disability law.
The Court ruled that digital illiteracy, lack of transparency, and weak grievance redressal cannot be grounds to deny the 25% quota. It mandated structured rules to make admissions accessible, transparent, and enforceable.
Interpreting Sections 21 and 22 together, the Court held that heirs inheriting an estate must maintain statutory dependants. A widowed daughter-in-law qualifies even if she did not receive a share in the estate. The decision clarifies obligations of successors.
The ruling confirms that a private financier does not fall under Article 12. Recovery disputes over gold loans are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction.
The Court upheld exemption from customs duty and AIDC for consignments landing by 30 June 2023 with qualifying Bills of Lading. Refunds were directed as per law.
The court upheld the quashing of a reassessment notice where the reasons were based on vague portal information without a live nexus to income escapement. The ruling reiterates that reopening cannot rest on fishing or roving inquiries.
