PCIT Vs Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) Conclusion: Assessee was not entitled to claim deduction of bad debt as the case did not satisfy the ingredients of both Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(2) and also advance written off was not allowable as business expenditure u/s 37(1). Held: Assessee carried on real estate development business, […]
Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Held that right to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant cannot be denied to an accused for his failure to deposit interim compensation.
Held that appeals against every decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. The principle remains the same even if the case of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power u/s 127.
Union of India & Others Vs Bharat Forge Ltd. (Supreme Court) It is contended by the appellants that as far as the tenders relied upon by the writ petitioner produced in the counter affidavit as having been brought out wherein the HSN code is indicated, they are tenders issued by the other units of the […]
If owner thinks that driver is competent to drive vehicle Its not expected from him to verify genuineness of driving license issued to driver
Parvathi Kollur & Anr. Vs State By Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court) The offence under Section 3 of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the […]
Held that SEBI could not have claimed privilege over certain parts of the documents and at the same time, agreeing to disclose some part. Such selective disclosure cannot be countenanced in law as it clearly amounts to cherrypicking.
The present case is related to the compensation to be awarded to the brothers of the deceased who was a victim in a motor vehicle accident. The case helps us understand as to who can be an heir and legal representative who is entitled to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act and Motor Vehicles Act.
Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138(c) of the Act aforementioned?
