Arsha Vijnana Trust Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Supreme Court of India) During the course of hearing, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant states that he has instructions not to press the present appeal as the denial of grant of exemption/benefit under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even if set […]
Commissioner of Central Excise Pune III Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd (Supreme Court) The question before the learned Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short ‘the Tribunal’] was whether the service tax was payable on a premium in terms of the insurance policy covering the future period at revised rates, if […]
Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd Vs Aloke Kumar (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal observed that Resolutions passed by General Body of the Society is supreme and the member of a Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society […]
It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that it was a case of wrong mentioning of the Section and the case would fall under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act. It is pointed out that, in the show cause notice, there was a reference to Section 114(i) or 114(iii) of the Customs Act. It is submitted that therefore on mere wrong mentioning of Section, the levy of penalty shall not fail.
Supreme Court observed that National Commission ought not to have gone beyond the grounds of repudiation of the claim and the matter was remanded to the State Commission for taking a decision afresh on the claim of the appellants on the grounds which formed the basis of repudiation and determine as to whether at the material point of time there was sufficient balance to cover the claim on account of declaration made as regards loss suffered by the appellants.
Supreme Court after applying the law laid down in Judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi have reassessed the amount pertaining to compensation and have enhanced the compensation under the head loss of dependency but have deducted the compensation under the head loss of consortium.
ACIT Vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (Supreme Court) In these batch of appeals and special leave petitions, the primary question which falls for consideration is the correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act introduced by amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2009. It is necessary, at this stage, to notice that the IT Act visualized […]
Supreme Court held that the valuation of shares for the purpose of gift tax needs to take into consideration the limitations and restrictions.
Supreme Court held that the State of Andhra Pradesh cannot retain the amount of central sales tax paid by the appellant on the transaction of sale effected through RSO, Vijayawada with respect to vehicles/buses sold to APSRTC.
Where the objective of the institution appears to be profit-oriented, such institutions would not be entitled to approval under Section 10(23C) of the IT Act.
