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...
High Court was justified in affirming the decision of the Tribunal that the income earned by the Assessee which was derived from underwriting the issue of bonds and investments in PSEB Bonds was in the nature of income from banking business and hence qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The short point involved in the present case is whether levy of interest under Section 234A/234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or not. At one point of time there was a doubt on the nature of interest payable by the assessee under Section 234A/234B of the Act. That controversy stood finally settled by a Five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, [2001] 252 ITR 1.
Neither Section 80HH nor Section 80I (as it then stood) statutorily obliged BRPL to maintain its accounts unit-wise and that it was open to BRPL to maintain its accounts in a consolidated form in order to put an end to the litigation between the Tax Department and the PSU we remit the case to the case to the AO
The respondent in this civil appeal is Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association and the Members of the said Association are licensed Stamp Vendors. We are satisfied that 0.50% to 4% discount given to the Stamp Vendors is for purchasing the stamps in bulk quantity and the said discount is in the nature of cash discount.
The supreme court has upheld the principle of exclusion of excise duty component from valuation of closing stock in the case of Dynavision Limited (SC). The important principle laid down in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (24 ITR 481 (SC)) & Hindustan Zinc Ltd (291 ITR 391 SC)) has been reiterated in its decision :
Sub-section (1) of Section 35AB of the Act clearly states that where the assessee has paid in any previous year any lump sum consideration for acquiring any know-how for use for the purposes of his business, then one-sixth of the amount so paid shall be deducted in computing the profits and gains of the business for that previous year and the balance amount shall be deducted in equal instalments for each of the five immediately succeeding previous years.
The only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income upto the date of payment.
The ITSC could not have been satisfied as to the acceptability of the assessee’s explanation with regard to the various issues raised before it in the report of the Commissioner merely on the basis of the reports of the JDIT. Without applying its mind directly to the report of the Commissioner and the materials referred to therein, it could not have reached the conclusion that nothing more was required to be added over and above the undisclosed income of Rs. 15 lakhs disclosed by the assessee. The ITSC thus ignored relevant evidence and material which it ought to have taken into account while processing the assessee’s application. [
On facts, we find that the assessee ought to have maintained a separate account in respect of raw material which it had sold during the assessment year. If the assessee had maintained a separate account, then, in that event, a clear picture would have emerged which would have indicated the income accrued from the manufacturing activity and the income accrued on the sale of raw material.
In a major setback to the Sahara Group, the Supreme Court today directed two of its companies to refund around Rs 24,000 crore to their investors within three months with 15 per cent interest per annum. In stinging observations against the companies for violating rules and regulations in raising funds from common investors, a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar said that such economic offences must be dealt with iron hand.
