Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Justdial लिमिटेड बनाम पीएन विग्नेश मा...
Corporate Law : SC slams High Court for 'playing it safe' on bail in Manish Sisodia's case, emphasizing that bail should be the norm, not the exce...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, ruling consensual relationship. Calls for legal reforms to prevent misuse of penal laws against m...
Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बार काउंसिलों द्वारा अत्य...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules Vodafone Idea is not liable for TDS on payments to foreign telecom operators. The decision aligns with earlier...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overrules India Cement case, ruling that MADA judgment should not be applied retrospectively to avoid disrupting pas...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purcha...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that Banks/ Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are obliged to adopt restructuring process of MSME as conte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed...
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...
Income Tax : Supreme Court's circular outlines guidelines for filing written submissions, documents, and oral arguments before Constitution Ben...
Corporate Law : The establishment M/s Radhika Theatre, situated at Warangal, Telangana was covered under ESI Act w.e.f. 16.01.1981 on the basis of...
Whether Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 (FCRA, 2010) (read with rules) allows Central Government to freely decide whether an organisation is political or not? What is Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010? The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 and rules framed under it (the ‘FCRA’ or ‘Act’) regulate contribution by non-governmental organisations (‘NGO’) in India. The […]
Since the reference to Hong Kong as ‘place of arbitration’ was not a simple reference as the ‘venue’ for the arbitral proceedings; but a reference to Hong Kong was for final resolution by arbitration administered in Hong Kong
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court) In the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors., Punjab & Haryana High Court) has directed the Government to permit the Petitioners to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 […]
The issue under consideration is whether the High Court was right in directing that pre-deposit was not required for entertaining an appeal before the DRAT as mandated by Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act).
Supreme Court judgment on avoidance of transactions under Insolvency Code. Key rulings on sections 43, 45, and 66. Anuj Jain vs Axis Bank. Legal insights.
In the given case, a batch of writ petitions are pending before the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana in which the constitutional validity of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Rule 126 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 and other cognate provisions, is under challenge.
Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.) & Anr (Supreme Court) In the facts of the present case, the respondents do not and cannot dispute that they have to refund the seized amount. Further, considerable delay and failure to make the payment constitutes and is inseparable from the cause of action as […]
NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd Vs PCIT (Supreme Court) In this case earlier Hon’ble SC has upheld addition under Section of Share Capital and Share premium Considering the Same as Bogus as Appellant was failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of receiving share application money and to prove the creditworthiness. A petition […]
In the instant case, indisputedly the application was filed by the appellant as a buyer of the goods(conveyor belts) from M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. who paid the duty under protest much after a period of limitation (six months) as prescribed under the mandate of law disentitles the claim of refund to the appellant as prayed for in view of the judgment of this Court in Commissoiner of Central Excise, Mumbai II Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. case (supra) holding that the purchaser of the goods was not entitled to claim refund of duty made under protest by the manufacturer without complying the mandate of Section 11B of the Act, 1944.
Supreme Court directs transfer of 3 writ petition filed against the decision of NAA to Delhi High Court. Supreme Court, observing that 20 writ petition filed against order of NAA is pending before Delhi High Court, 2 before Bombay High Court and 1 before Punjab & Haryana High Court, held that in the interests of a uniform and consistent view on the law, all the writ petitions should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi, where earlier writ petitions are already pending.
