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...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs Kit ply Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether laminated panels of particle and medium density fibre board should be classified under sub- heading no. 4406.90 and 4407.90 or under subheading no. 4408.90?
Aluva Sugar Agency Vs. State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India)-Upon perusal of the Circular dated 19th February, 1996, explaining the term “edible oil”, we find that intention of the government was to give relief in tax to edible oils. So as to clarify the doubt, it has been specifically stated in the said circular that edible oils would also include hydrogenated oils such as ground nut oil, gingerly oil, refined oil and vanaspathi oil.
esar Enterprises Ltd. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- In the present case, before imposing the impugned demand of penalty and interest, there was absolutely no adjudication by any authority as regards the breach committed by the appellant, except the allegation that the appellant had failed to furnish the PD-25 pass certified by the Collector. In our opinion, therefore, the action of the respondents for the recovery of penalty and interest, being violative of principles of natural justice, is null and void.
ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court of India)- However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the assessing officer while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
M/s M.R. Tourist Home & Ors. Vs. Sales Tax Officer & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether Section 7(b) of Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 introduced on 24.10.2006 with retrospective effect from 1.7.2006 could be applied to those dealers who had contracted for payment of turnover tax at the compounded rate under the alternate method of taxation provided for under the un amended Section 7 for the assessment year 2006- 07?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut- II Vs. M/s. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- We have a recent decision of this Court in the case of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 601. This Court in the said decision has very carefully considered almost all the previous decisions of this Court on the issue of the levy/payment of Excise Duty Valuation on articles manufactured by the assessee company therein. After referring to practically all the decisions on the issue this Court in the aforesaid case held that the consistent view of this Court is that the marketability is an essential criteria for charging duty and that the test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges.
Air Liquid North India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)- Relabelling would not mean mere fixing of another label. When the appellant was selling different cylinders with different marking or different certificates to its different customers, we can say that the appellant was virtually giving different marks or different labels to different cylinders having different quality and quantity of gas. It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose. Thus, the treatment given by the appellant to the gas sold by it would make a different commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing activity.
CIT Vs Surya Herbal Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Whether ITAT was justified in holding that dividend income earned by the Assessee amounting to Rs. 21,35,766/- from a Company called Pan Century Edible Oils SDN, BHD. Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of Assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act?
Uniflex Cables Ltd. versus C.C.E. (Supreme Court)- With regard to the imposition of penalty in the present case is concerned, the Commissioner, himself in his order-inoriginal has stated that the issue involved in the case is of interpretational nature. Keeping in mind the said factor, the Commissioner thought it fit not to impose harsh penalty and a penalty of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant while confirming the demand of the duty. Honorable Supreme Court held that as Commissioner himself found that it is only a case of interpretational nature, in our considered opinion, no penalty could be and is liable to be imposed on the appellant herein.
