Goods and Services Tax : The Finance Act, 2025 retrospectively amended Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act after the Supreme Court allowed ITC on certain comm...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that liabilities arising from corporate guarantees qualify as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Inso...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that a shortfall payment clause in a Deed of Hypothecation can qualify as a contract of guarantee under th...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about earlier rulings denying bail in UAPA cases, holding that smaller benches ca...
Income Tax : The article explains the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 ruling that broken period interest on debt securities is capital in natur...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : Justice BR Gavai sworn in as India's 52nd Chief Justice. Focus areas include addressing case pendency and improving court infrastr...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings arising from a Section 74 GST order while examining whether writ petitions can be ent...
Finance : The Supreme Court refused relief to borrowers who defaulted from the very first instalment after availing an ₹8.09 crore loan. T...
Finance : The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The C...
Income Tax : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d...
Corporate Law : The Bill seeks to amend Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for backward classes proportionate to their population identified ...
Fema / RBI : RBI directs banks, NBFCs, and other entities to implement Supreme Court’s accessibility guidelines for digital KYC, ensuring inc...
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...
A.T. Mydeen and Another Vs Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (Supreme Court of India) High Court fell into an error while passing a common judgement, based on evidence recorded in only one trial, against two sets of accused persons having been subjected to separate trials – matter remanded Facts- The main issue involved in the matter […]
Goutam Roy & Anr. Vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court held that There cannot be complete ban on firecrackers. Strengthen mechanism to supervise and implement (Supreme Court’s earlier directions). FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. SLP (C) No.17994/2021 @ Diary No.26789/2021 and SLP (C) Nos. 1799597/2021 @ […]
A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’ in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment.
Accident benefit could have been claimed and availed of only if the accident had taken place subsequent to the renewal of the policy. The policy in the instant case was lying in a lapsed condition since 14th October, 2011 and, therefore, was not in force as on 06.03.2012, resultantly, the claim over Accident benefit was not payable to the respondent as per the conditions of the contract of insurance.
Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs Employees State Insurance Corpn. (Supreme Court of India) Non-challenge of validity of Regulation 31-A confirms interest demand under the same Facts- The subject matter of the present dispute is demand made by the Employees State Insurance Corporation by way of contribution payable by the appellant for the period from […]
In absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case doesn’t and cannot reply on section 22C(2) of the Act. Unless the company as a principal accused has committed the offence, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) would not be liable and cannot be prosecuted.
The brief facts of the case were that the Respondent was facing several problems while their filing of GSTR Form 3B due to the several glitches that were occurring in the Online GST Portal. Amidst these glitches, the Respondent filed their GST returns for the period of July, 2017 to September, 2017 with excess amount of ₹ 923 Crores and therefore, they have sought the refund accordingly.
Held that a Will cannot be revoked by an agreement and can be revoked only as per the modes specified under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act.
The nomenclature that the legislature had ascribed to the tax did not determine either the nature of the levy or its true and essential character. The tax had been labelled as the water tax or a sewerage tax simply because it was imposed by the Jal Sansthan constituted under the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act. That did not alter the nature of the levy which in substance was a tax on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
The workmen working in the Dewas factory of the appellant were transferred to Chopanki, District Alwar. Being aggrieved the workmen made a reference of the same to the Labour Court claiming that the employer has transferred them without any justifiable reason and such transfer amounts to illegal change under section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
