Corporate Law : A detailed analysis of the Supreme Court's verdict on the Tata Sons vs. Cyrus Mistry case, covering corporate governance, minority...
Corporate Law : Calls for a High Court Bench in West UP remain ignored. SC urged to intervene in judicial disparities affecting millions. Know the...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, stating consensual relationship, even with breach of promise, doesn't automatically constitute ra...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court emphasizes strict scrutiny of FIRs under stringent laws like the UP Gangsters Act to prevent misuse in property ...
Custom Duty : The Supreme Court rules DRI officers as proper officers for customs under Section 28, overturning past judgments and reshaping tax...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Income Tax : Government addresses Supreme Court judgment on tax exemptions for clergy and its implications on Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) u...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rejects regularisation of illegal constructions, irrespective of occupancy or investments, and calls for action agai...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court Collegium recommends three advocates—Ajay Digpaul, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, and Shwetasree Majumder—for ...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Service Tax : Supreme Court held that activity of lottery distributor doesn’t constitute a service and hence imposition of service tax on dist...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court clarified procedures for summons, warrants, and bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), emphasizin...
Income Tax : Supreme Court emphasizes reasonable cause for TDS non-deduction under Section 271C. Highlights interplay of Sections 4, 5, 9, and ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court reaffirms that charitable trust registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act should be based on proposed ac...
Corporate Law : Smt. Syeda Rahimunnisa and Syed Hyder Hussaini are wife and husband whereas the respondent no. 1(a) to 1(f) are the legal heirs of...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
United Bank of India Vs. Bachan Prasad Lall (Supreme Court) The nature of allegation against the respondent employee was of fraudulently preparing nine credit transfer vouchers on various dates on the pretext of payment of interest towards fixed deposits and crediting the whole amount to one saving account opened in the name of one Smt. […]
SC issued notice to the government, in a matter challenging the power of Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (ADG, DRI) as a proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962.
In the present case, the appellant clearly sought an operational service from the Proprietary Concern when it contracted with them for the supply of light fittings. Further, when the contract was terminated but the Proprietary Concern nonetheless encashed the cheque for advance payment, it gave rise to an operational debt in favor of the appellant, which now remains unpaid. Hence, the appellant is an operational creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC.
State of Manipur & Ors. Vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The main contention in the appeal is that the declaration of the Assam Act, 2004 as unconstitutional does not per se render the 2012 Act invalid. It was argued that Bimolangshu Roy was wrongly decided and should be held to be […]
SIGNIFICANCE This case was a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court on the issue of the scope of liability to tax on the principle of estoppel. The case deals with the doctrine of ‘Approbate and Reprobate’ which in layman’s terms translates to “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” It is further based […]
State of Kerala & Ors. Vs Laxmi Vasanth (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court observed that Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 of the Partnership Act shall not be applicable to a minor partner who was not a partner at the time of his attaining the majority. Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 of the Partnership […]
Indusind Bank Limited Vs Simarjit Singh (Supreme Court of India) In July 2006, the respondent-complainant, Simarjit Singh had availed a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from the appellant, IndusInd Bank Limited for financing a truck. The loan was repayable in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 35,150/-. The respondent committed default in payment of three instalments due […]
The AO opined that the non-refundable grants were in the nature of capital expense and not a revenue expense and, thus, disallowed the same as a deduction. What weighed with the AO was also the fact that the grants received from the Central Government were in the nature of a capital receipt exempt from tax.
The finding overlooks that no one would like to avail services of a stranger or an agent if the work, that is, transfer of KVP certificates, could be otherwise handled and done with ease. Further, no one would like to lose money to a stranger. Necessarily, we would accept that the appellants had remained in touch with Rukhsana but were given the impression that the exercise is complex and would take time. Further they had belief that the post office would take care of their interest, act in good faith and would not be negligent.
Siddharthshankar Sharma Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) The grievance of the petitioner that he was denied the facility of a vaccination for failure to produce an Aadhar card has also been dealt with in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare addressed a […]
