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...
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs CCIT (Supreme Court) Appellant namely ‘New Okhla Industrial Development Authority; claimed that he is covered by Clause (ii) of the Explanation to Section 10(2) i.e. Municipality as referred to in clause (e) of Article 243P of the Constitution. We, while discussing above provisions, have already held that the appellant […]
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. held that the Assessing Officer does not have the power to entertain a fresh claim raised before him otherwise than by filing a revised return. However, can this still hold good in view of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
Waiver of loan for acquiring capital assets could not be taxed as perquisites under section 28(iv) since receipts were in the nature of cash or money. Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act does not apply since waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability. It is a matter of record that the assessee had not claimed any deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act qua the payment of interest in any previous year.
This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 780 of 2006 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein at the admission stage.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) It was held that measure of the levy contemplated in Section 4 of the Act will not be controlled by the nature of the levy. So long a reasonable nexus is discernible between the measure and the nature of the levy both […]
Mahabir Industries Vs. PCIT (Supreme High Court) The assessee in the instant case has not got deduction under Section 80-IC for a period of ten years as he started claiming deduction under this provision w.e.f. Assessment Year 2006-07. Situation Nos. (b) and (c) mentioned above would not apply to the assessee as it’s undertaking/enterprise is […]
The question before the Court was whether the value of goods and materials supplied free of cost by the service recipient was to be included in the computation of gross amount charged for the valuation of taxable service?
To make matters worse, in this appeal, the Union of India has engaged 10 lawyers, including an Additional Solicitor General and a Senior Advocate! This is as per the appearance slip submitted to the Registry of this Court. In other words, the Union of India has created a huge financial liability by engaging so many lawyers for an appeal whose fate can be easily imagined on the basis of existing orders of dismissal in similar cases. Yet the Union of India is increasing its liability and asking the taxpayers to bear an avoidable financial burden for the misadventure.
The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the validity of Communication No.GS 41 GOB 2018 dated 16th May, 2018, addressed by the Governor of Karnataka to Shri B.S. Yeddyurappa (respondent No.3 herein) inviting him to form the government and be sworn in as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka.
Though the case has a chequered history and the facts are long the matter lies within a short compass. The core question is one relating to the maintainability of the suit, viz., O.S. No.106 of 2009 filed by the second respondent – Nandini seeking partition wherein the order of injunction was passed.
