SC held that the exclusion of an industrial area or areas from the limits of municipal councils or municipalities under the state laws in exercise of statutory power or by virtue of a declaration under proviso to Article 243-Q, would not result in that area ceasing to be a local area within Entry 52 of List II.
DCIT Vs Manish Vijay Mehta (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, in this case, the assessee is a nonresident from A.Y. 2001-02 and has been working as an employee in Belgium. He is having the income of interest on fixed deposits in India and is filing the return of income since A.Y. 2003-04 showing residential status as non-resident. […]
hether Registrar while registering any immovable property ,the value of which has been determined in a court monitored public auction can apply the provisions of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990 to allege undervaluation of the property and demand higher stamp duty?
Supreme court held that High Court cannot entertain Public Interest Litigations (PIL) which is based on mere allegations by the person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials.
Supreme Court held that as per regulation 114(4) of the Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 election can be challenged by the candidate concerned. Hence, writ petition filed by the petitioner not contesting the election of office bearers to the High Court was wrongly entertained.
Whether an exclusion clause destroying the very contract knowingly entered, can be permitted to be used by a party who introduced it, becomes a beneficiary and then to avoid its liability?
Supreme Court held that chapter-V of the MSMED Act, 2006 would override the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Accordingly, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council shall have jurisdiction to proceed with the dispute covered u/s 17 of MSMED Act, 2006 despite the existence of an independent arbitration agreement between the parties.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. Vs Property Owners’ Association & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) The CJI bench of Supreme Court in this case was dealing with the levy of property tax in Greater Mumbai which had been changed from ratable value to capital value system by virtue of amendments made to the […]
Honble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel shall not be applicable to a policy decision with respect to incentive, when it is well within the right of DGFT/appropriate authority/Union to come out with a new Exim Policy.
Supreme Court held that no borrower can, as a matter of right pray for a grant for the benefit of onetime settlement scheme and writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the High Court in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the financial institution/bank to positively grant a benefit of OTS to a borrower.
