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...
The appellant-assessee is engaged in the business of export of marine products and also financial consultancy and trading in equity shares. Its total business does not consist purely of exports but includes business within the country as well which situation is covered by Section 80HHC (3)(b).
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Custom in Civil Appeal No. 5802 of 2005 decided on 29.07.15 has held that assessment proceeding under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 cannot be continued against the legal representative/estate of a sole proprietor/manufacturer after he is dead.
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa V/s. M/s Cosme Farma Laboratories Ltd., it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of job work arrangement, the job worker should be considered as manufacturer on the basis of the arrangement
The appellant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Limited for the purpose of construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Joint Venture was awarded a contract
An agreement was entered into between the respondent and Met Chem Canada Inc. to associate Met Chem Canada Inc. as a technical consultant to render technical services in relation to implementation of a project to set up a plant in India for production of Hot Rolled Steel Coils and Strips.
In the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that While classifying a product for excise purpose Primary use of the product will prevails over the incidental ones. It further held that merely because a particular embossed hologram is self adhesive, therefore in all cases, it will attract entry 39 related to self adhesive is not correct. While classifying what is to be seen is whether the self adhesive part of the product is of primary use or the printed matter is of primary use. It cannot be that invariably in all cases, the moment a hologram is self adhesive it will fall within entry 39.
In the case of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by SC that a process that is only adding some value to the inputs does not necessarily amounts to manufacture. After processing of the inputs, a new and different article emerges having a distinct name, character or
In the case of M/s. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur, it was held that a person who is ultimately aggrieved with the payment of the duty and challenges the order successfully can seek the refund as per Rule 11B of the act.
The appellant does not even undertake any loading operation. The primary job of the appellant, as per the contract between the appellant and the Ambuja companies, is of supervising and liasioning with the coal company
Recently SC held that in exercising legislative power, the legislature by mere declaration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or override a judicial decision. It can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting valid law on the topic within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively.
