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...
Merely because similar matters are pending is not a ground to grant leave and take the matter when the authorities have been negligent in filing the appeal. We have repeatedly emphasized that unless the case is brought within the parameters of Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. –(2012) 3 SCC 563, we would not be inclined to condone the delay and have in fact dismissed the special leave petitions with cost categorizing them as “certificate cases” only brought before the Court to complete a formality and save the skin of the officers concerned.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) In a Suo Motu Writ Petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a direction need to be issued to the States/Union Territories to register all establishments and license all contractors under the Inter State Migrant Workers Act, 1979 and ensure that statutory duty […]
SC has imposed penalty of 25000/- INR on the Revenue Department for delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (“SLP”) for wastage of judicial time. Further, directed to recover the amount from officers responsible for the delay in filing the SLP.
When the settlement with regard to a dispute between the parties was not arrived at under Section 18 of MSMED Act, 2006, necessarily, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council should take up the dispute for arbitration under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act or it might refer to institution or Centre to provide alternate dispute resolution services and provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 were made applicable as if there was an agreement between the parties under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the 1996 Act. Therefore, Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the 2006 Act.
“Section 194C(1) :Scope of any work , explanation as income tax on income comprised therein , and total value of the work contract,TDS on reimbursement part explained by the Hon’ble SC in Associated Cement Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax … on 23 March, 1993 ‘194C(1). Any person responsible for paying any sum to any […]
No immunity from tax to the right person if revenue taxed wrong person contrary to law. SC in the case of Income Tax Officer vs Ch. Atchaiah on 11 December, 1995 There are no words in the present Act (The Income Tax Act , 1961) which empower the Income Tax Officer or give him an […]
SEBI Vs Ajay Agarwal (Supreme Court of India) FACTS Securities and Exchange Board of India (Appellant) initiated investigations against Trident Steel (company) on receipt of a complaint by a BSE member relating to public issue of the company. The complaint alleged misstatement of facts by the Company in the prospectus issued in furtherance of the […]
The Court ordered the absolute Confiscation of Peas and Pulses but if the importer concerned opted for re-export, within another period of two weeks from today, such a prayer for re- export might be granted by the authorities after recovery of the necessary redemption fine and subject to the importer discharging other statutory obligations. If no such option was exercised within prescribed time, the goods should stand confiscated absolutely.
The Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code relating to insolvency of personal guarantors that were brought into force in 2019. Further the notification has been issued by MCA on 15.11.2019 which has notified the provision of IBC w.r.t. to personal guarantors. However, validity of the same has been challenged by IBBI on 20.11.2019 which is confined to impugned notification.
Revenue has to give due regard to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them Utmost regard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of judicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding […]
