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...
In the present case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the place of delivery could not be termed as place of removal for the relevant time mentioned in the show cause notices with respect to section 4 of Excise Act and Rule 5 of Excise Valuation Rules.
The Supreme Court Bar Association favoured NJAC for appointment and transfer of judges. It advocated that it can probe cases of misconduct by judges, including those from the highest judiciary.
Supreme Court of India while interpreting Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which is for rebate of excise duty, has held in the case of Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise that Rebate of Duty is Admissible Both on Inputs i.e raw materials and Final Goods.
Whether the Assessee is eligible to claim rebate of Excise duty paid on inputs used in exported goods as well the Excise duty paid on exported final products under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (the Excise Rules)?
Supreme Court held In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy V. The Dist. Inspector of Police and ANR that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge there for, would fail.
Supreme Court held In the case of SRI S.N. Wadiyar (Dead) through LR V. Commissioner of Wealth Tax that a property which is going to be taken over by the Government at a compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs and is awaiting notification under Section 10 of the Act for this purpose
CCE Vs. Hitkari Fibres Ltd. (Supreme Court), Price-escalation which was not contemplated at or before time of removal, cannot form part of transaction value especially when there is no allegation of understatement of value – Duty is payable at place, price and time of clearance of goods
Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (Supreme Court) Not allowing assessee to cross-examine statements of witnesses, which were made basis of demand, is a serious flaw which makes order nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Seiko Brushware India , it was held by Supreme Court that benefit of exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. Dated 13.06.1998 for NIL SAD is not granted in respect of such goods which the importer sells post importation from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale of goods.
In the case of CIT vs. Suman Dhamija, the Supreme Court held that CBDT Instruction specifying monetary limits for filing appeals applicable only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appeals.
