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...
Long pending dispute regarding constitutional validity of entry tax levied by various States has been settled by Hon ‘bless Supreme Court by its judgement delivered on 11.11.2016
Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity of Entry tax imposed by States. A nine-judge Constitution Bench, overrules ‘compensatory tax’ theory propounded by 7 judges bench
Section 54E of Income Tax Act,1961 does Not Make Any Distinction Between Depreciable Asset And Non-Depreciable Asset And, Therefore, The Exemption Available to the Depreciable Asset Under Section 54E Cannot Be Denied By Referring to the Fiction Created Under Section 50
Nominee of Deceased Member is absolutely entitled for the Ownership by transfer, Co-op. Soc can’t challenge the right of Nominee a settled Law of the land. No legal heirship, court order or succession certificate is required.
In the case of Mega Cabs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. dated 03.06.2016 , Honorable Delhi High Court has Declared Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, as amended, to the extent that it authorises the officers of the Service Tax Department, the audit party deputed by a Commissioner or the CAG […]
The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011. Being dissatisfied with the dismissal of his writ petition the appellant preferred a Review Petition which was also dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2011.
Honorable ble Supreme court held that Visveswaraiah Technological University being not wholly or substantially financed by government is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(23)(iiiab). Further, the fees collected by the University as per prescribed govt. norms cannot be said to finance provided by govt. Therefore, assistance by govt. by way of loans, grants and subsidies only to be considered as financing from it.
The business of the company was to lease its property and to earn rent and therefore, the income so earned should be treated as its business income. The High court was not correct while deciding that the income of the appellant should be treated as Income from House Property.
To recapitulate briefly, the assessee is a company as defined under Section 2(17) of the Act and is also in the business of operating qualifying ship(s). It is also not in dispute that it owns a qualifying ship and fulfillment of this condition permits the assessee to exercise its option for computation of income from the business of operating qualifying ships under Chapter XIIG of the Act.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was right in law in holding, that, the interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the Year of purchase of securities.
