The Supreme Court held that a collaborator essential to contract execution and bound through a Deed of Joint Undertaking can invoke the arbitration clause despite not being a direct signatory.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court ruling quashing reassessment proceedings where the assessee had disclosed all transactions in audited accounts and income tax returns. The Court left the question of law open.
The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires proof of deliberate inaccuracy. The ruling clarifies that estimation disputes alone cannot justify penalty.
The issue involved whether jurisdictional officers could issue reassessment notices. The Court set aside High Court rulings after a retrospective amendment clarified their authority and remanded the matter.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Supreme Court held that the IBC cannot be used as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree. It ruled that initiating CIRP for recovery purposes amounts to misuse of the insolvency framework.
The Supreme Court dismissed SLPs and upheld the High Court’s finding that reassessment notices lacked tangible material. The ruling reinforces that mere survey findings cannot justify reopening of assessments.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal due to unexplained delay, leaving the High Court ruling intact. The decision confirms that depreciation is allowable where leased assets are used in business.
The Court held that a photocopy of a power of attorney cannot be relied upon without fulfilling legal requirements for secondary evidence. As the authority to sell was not established, the sale deeds were declared invalid.
SC allowed classification of Odomos under HSN 38089191 to stand, holding that market identity and consumer understanding supported its treatment as a mosquito repellent.
