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...
Supreme Court held that Looking to the amount of tax involved in this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have decided the matter on merits. In all such cases where there is delay on the part of the Department, we request the High Court to consider imposing costs but certainly it should examine the cases on merits and should not dispose of cases merely on the ground of delay, particularly when huge stakes are involved.
Central Excise – SSI Exemption – Use of another person’s brand name – Not entitled for exemption: It is manifest from a bare reading of Clause 4 of the Notification, read with Explanation IX that it clearly debars an assessee from the benefit of exemption under the notification, if he uses another person’s brand or trade name with the intention of indicating a connection between the assessee’s goods and such other person. It is evident that the object of the exemption notification is to grant benefits only to those industries which otherwise do not have the advantage of brand or trade name. In order to avail of the benefit of the exemption notification, the assessee must establish that his product is not associated with some other person: if it is shown that the assessee has affixed the brand name of another person on his goods with the intention of indicating a connection between the assessee’s goods and the goods of another person, using such name or mark, then the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of exemption notification; if the assessee is able to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority that there was no such intention, or that the user of the brand name was entirely fortuitous, it would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption
A person who was convicted for an offence and removed from service cannot claim backwages even if he was acquitted later, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Corp Mithilesh vs Union of India. Merely because he is acquitted, he is not entitled to backwages and other consequential benefits, the court said.
The Supreme Court last week stated that goods and services hired for commercial purposes cannot be the subject matter of a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It set aside the judgment of the National Consumer Commission in the case
Full Bench: whether MAT credit admissible in terms of Section 115JAA has to be set off against the tax payable (assessed tax) before calculating interest under Sections 234A, B and C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no provision under Section 115JAA which postpones the right of the assessee to claim set off to the determination of the total income by the A.O. in the first assessment year. Entitlement right to claim set off is different from the quantum quantification.
The brief facts which give rise to the aforesaid issue are that the Respondent imported Crude Palm Stearin through Kakinada Port and filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods as industrial grade Crude Palm Stearin falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
In this case, a war widow was given a gas distribution agency. She was managing it with her two daughters. When she became old, she made it into a partnership. She held 51 per cent and another held the rest. The corporation cancelled the licence on t
The Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe any time limit for referring a dispute to the labour court, the Supreme Court has stated in its judgment, Kuldeep Singh vs Instrument Design Development Centre. In this case, the employee was terminated
The Supreme Court (SC) stated last week that courts should not dismiss petitions of revenue authorities only on the ground of delay, without going into the merits of the case. In this case, the Commissioner of Income Tax appealed to the SC against th
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Parle Bisleri Ltd challenging the ruling against it by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in an excise dispute over its soft drink flavours and the use of their brand names. Apart from Parle Bisleri, two others involved were Parle Exports Ltd and Parle International Ltd. Parle Bisleri claimed excise benefits as a small scale industry in the 1990’s. The claim was rejected by the tribunal. It appealed to the Supreme Court, which stated that the tribunal was right in denying the benefit by clubbing the products of the three companies. The court said: “the three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management… It would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer disputed questions. On this count, therefore, we have no hesitation whatsoever in affirming the order of the tribunal,which was justified entirely through the precedent set by this court.”
