Whether payment to shareholders out of sale proceeds of a property belonging to the company, to end dispute amongst the shareholder can be cost of improvement for computation of capital gains?
CIT Vs Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court allows Revenue’s appeal quashing the Bombay High court order that had set aside CIT’s revisionary order passed under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. CIT in exercise of the powers u/s 263 and in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, set aside the […]
SC in Excel Crop Care ruled that relevant turnover of company, rather than Total turnover, should be used to determine punishment to be imposed on firms using anti-competitive techniques.
Issuance of corporate guarantee to a group company without consideration would not fall within banking and other financial services and is therefore not taxable service.
Chandra Prakash Mishra Vs Flipkart India Private Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) In Chandra Prakash Mishra v. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. and Others (2022) 6 TMI 203; (2022) 137 taxmann.com 366 (Supreme Court), appellant preferred a civil appeal against Allahabad High Court order in a matter concerning Value Added Tax (VAT). [Flipkart India […]
Supreme Court held that irregularity in manner of effecting the service of order irrelevant when appellants had the knowledge of order passed against them.
Supreme Court held that without the compressors and the pipes necessary to pump the dredged material, the cutter dredger would cease to function as such. Accordingly, benefit of NIL rate of duty in terms of notification no. 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 duly available.
CCE, Aurangabad Vs Videocon Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court) Sub- Whether LCD panels are to be classified as part of television sets or audio players or independently for charging Customs duty? The Apex Court in this case was dealing with the classification of LCD Panels which were imported and were to be used as part of […]
The Constitutional Bench ruled that allows Circumstantial Evidence did not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there were no circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand for gratification, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.
Section 12A of IBC permits withdrawal of applications admitted under sections 7, 9 and 10 of IBC. It permits withdrawal of such applications with approval of 90 percent voting share of CoC in such manner as may be specified.
