The dispute concerned the scope of the deeming provision under Section 103 of the MSCS Act. The Court ruled that the deeming fiction operates only when the society’s objects, not merely its operations, span multiple States.
The issue was whether payment of substantial loan EMIs can be treated as proof of income. The Court ruled that EMIs, without corroborative evidence, cannot determine income, leading to a downward revision of compensation.
ITO Vs Srichand Mandhyan (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court considered a Special Leave Petition challenging an order passed by the Bombay High Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the material on record, the Supreme Court found no valid ground to interfere with the High Court’s decision. Accordingly, the Special […]
The High Court held that complex issues on overlapping State and Central proceedings should be examined by the Appellate Authority. The Supreme Court has stayed the order after notice on the argument that duplicate proceedings are barred by statute.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with a High Court order discharging an accused in a money laundering case. The ruling confirms that no grounds were made out to disturb the High Court’s assessment of the limited role attributed.
Reopening notices under Section 148 were quashed as the petitioner’s depreciation claims on a slump sale of an injectable business were valid and fully disclosed.
The Supreme Court upheld mandatory pre-deposit conditions under the VAT law, ruling that appeals can be lawfully restricted by statutory payment requirements.
The court held that refund of Compensation Cess ITC is permissible on exports made with IGST payment because statutory provisions prevail over conflicting circulars. The ruling clarifies that unutilized Cess credit on inputs used for exports must be refunded.
Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court ruling that treated settlement applications filed before 31.03.2021 as valid, while keeping the legal question open
Supreme Court ruled that compassionate appointments are concessions, not rights. Once a dependent accepts a post, claims for higher posts are barred to prevent endless compassion.
