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 conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee has failed to prove the source of the cash credits cannot be said to be perverse, giving rise to a substantial question of law. The Tribunal being a final fact finding authority, in the absence of demonstrated perversity in its finding, interference therewith by this Court is not warranted.
Section 44 of the KGST Act is very clear and it stipulates that it is only the dealer of tea on whom the assessment has been made and it is only he who can claim for refund of tax. In view of the clear and unambiguous position, the appellant cannot claim for refund of tax collected from the seller of tea. It is clearly provided in the principles of Interpretation of Statutes that when the meaning and the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, nothing could be added to the language and the words of the statute.
The Supreme Court today directed the Defence Ministry and the Karnataka government to meet and resolve their dispute over Rs 1,519 crore sales tax on defence contracts executed by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL).
Joint CIT v. Rolta India Ltd. (SC) -Can interest under sections 234B and 234C be levied where a company is assessed on the basis of book profits under section 115JB? On this issue, the Supreme Court observed that there is a specific provision in section 115JB(5) providing that all other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in that section. Section 115JB is a self-contained code pertaining to MAT, and by virtue of sub-section (5) thereof, the liability for payment of advance tax would be attracted. Therefore, if a company defaults in payment of advance tax in respect of tax payable under section 1 15JB, it would be liable to pay interest under sections 234B and 234C. Therefore, interest under sections 234B and 234C shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under section 1 15JB.
The Supreme Court last week set aside the ruling of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and quashed the levy of anti-dumping duty imposed under a notification dated April 27, 2005. The order was passed in the appeal case, Automative Tyre Manufacturers Association vs Designated Authority (DA). The association represented domestic tyre manufacturing units, who import nylon tyre cord fabric from various countries, including China, as one of their basic raw materials for manufacture of tyres. The tribunal had dismissed the appeals, preferred by the association, Apollo Tyres, J.K. Tyres and Ningbo Nylon of China and confirmed the levy of anti-dumping duty in terms of the notification. It held that taxing is a legislative function and therefore, the DA need not hear the parties before taking action. Overruling this view, the Supreme Court declared that the order passed by the DA “offended the basic principle of natural justice. Therefore, the notification having been issued on the basis of the findings of the DA, who failed to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained.”
Supreme Court upholding the order of the Delhi High Court, denied reduction from book profit, for the purpose of Section 115JB (Section) of the Indian Tax Law, of the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve. This is for the reason that such reserve was not added back to the net profit in the year of creation of revaluation reserve (year of creation), in terms of the requirement of the Section.
The Supreme Court stated last week that the debt recovery proceedings of Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) may be continued against a defaulting company by its successor, Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd (IIBIL). The new institution was brought into being by the Industrial Reconstruction Bank (Repeal) Act in 1997. In this case, IIBIL vs Jain Cables Ltd, a loan was granted to the company. The latter did not meet the loan obligations and therefore, the creditor moved the Rajasthan high court. It held that the petition was not maintainable because it was moved under the repealed law. IIBIL therefore appealed to the Supreme Court. It overruled the high court. It stated that the provisions of the 1997 Act made it clear that any cause of action which arose before 1997 and pursued by IRBI could be continued and enforced by IIBIL. The case could be pursued as if the 1997 Act had not been enacted, the judgement said.
The compensation for land acquired should be based on the fair market value received for similar land in the neighbourhood, but not sold in auction, the Supreme Court has asserted in the case, Karnataka Housing Board vs Land Acquisition Officer. This, said the court, was because auction sales stood on a different footing. In auction, there is an element of competition, triggered by “human ego, and desire to do better than other competitors.” This leads to high prices. On the other hand, when the auction is by banks, financial institutions or courts, “there is an element of distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation.” These factors depress the price. Therefore, auction price should not be the criterion for calculating compensation for acquired land, the court said.
This appeal, by special leave, at the instance of the Revenueis directed against the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2001 delivered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Income Tax Reference No. 44 of 1986. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has answered the following questions
The assessee is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange and it earns income mainly from share trading and brokerage. During the financial year 1999- 2000, relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, the Chola Freedom Technology Mutual Fund came out with an advertisement stating that tax free dividend income of 40% could be earned if investments
