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...
Assistant Commissioner Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supreme Court Conclusion: Power of Supreme Court & High Court under Articles 142 and 226 to entertain a challenge to the assessment order on the sole ground that the statutory remedy of appeal against that order stood foreclosed by the law of limitation however the […]
There is no concept of constructive delivery either express or implied in section 3 of Central Sales Tax Act”. Hence, benefit cannot be denied under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax basis departmental circulars
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supreme Court) In Challenge : – Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. Constitution of India – Art-226 – Writ Jurisdiction bypassing the statutory provisions – remedy against the assessment order […]
It is hereby ordered that all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders to be passed by this Court in the present proceedings.
Payments made to the Non-Resident Sports Associations represented their income which accrued or arose or was deemed to have accrued or arisen in India. Consequently, assessee was liable to deduct Tax at Source in terms of Section 194E.
DIRECT TAXES UPDATES Recent circulars/ notifications/ rules/ clarifications/News ♦ Government issues clarification regarding short deduction of TDS / TCS due to increase in rates of Surcharge by Finance Act 2019. (Circular no. 8/2020 dated 13th April 2020)Recent circulars/ notifications/ rules/ clarifications/News ♦ Government issues clarification regarding selection of option under section 115 BAC related to […]
Uptill AY 2016-17, if a scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the return is not required to be processed u/s 143(1) for grant of refund to the assessee however, from AY 2017-18 & onwards, a different regime is prescribed by Parliament by inserting section 241-A which required separate recording of satisfaction on part of AO that having regard to the issue of notice u/s 143(2), the grant of refund was likely to adversely affect the revenue. The withholding of refund required the previous approval of the PCIT with reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus, demands in respect of earlier assessment years including the liability as a result of order dated 28.12.2019 being outstanding, the respondents would be entitled to invoke the requisite power under Section 245 to set off the amount of refund payable in respect of AY 2014-15 against tax remaining payable.
The doctrine of mutuality bestows a special status to qualify for exemption from tax liability. It is a settled proposition of law that exemptions are to be put to strict interpretation. Asssessee having failed to fulfil the stipulations and to prove the existence of mutuality, the question of extending exemption from tax liability to assesse, that too at the cost of public exchequer, did not arise. Once it was conclusively determined that the assessee company had not operated as a mutual concern, there would be no question of extending exemption from tax liability.
In re Vijay Rule & Ors. (Supreme Court) There is not an iota of remorse or any semblance of apology on behalf of the contemnors. Since they have not argued on sentence, we have to decide the sentence without assistance of the contemnors. In view of the scurrilous and scandalous allegations levelled against the judges […]
Since the activities carried on by the liaison office of the non-resident in India was to only carry on such activity of a ‘preparatory or auxiliary’ character, therefore, the same was not a PE in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA and the deeming provisions in Sections 5 and 9 of the 1961 Act could have no bearing.
