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 Supreme Court has set aside the penalty demanded by the excise authorities from Pepsi Foods Ltd because there was no intentional default on the part of the company. But the court overruled the excise tribunal on the question of inclusion of freight charges between Pepsi factory and Frito-Lay India.
Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract; any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods
In all these petitions, the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (`Act’ for short) is challenged. In TC No.150/2006, additionally there is a challenge to section 46 of the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 323B of Constitution of India. It is contended that section 46 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, is ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution as it enables proliferation of Tribunal system and makes serious
In the present case, the trial court had acquitted the appellant-accused in a case related to the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This finding of acquittal had been made by the Addl. JMFC at Ranebennur, Karnataka in Criminal Case No. 993/2001, by way of a judgment dated 30-5-2005. On appeal by the respondent-complainant, the High Court had reversed the trial court’s decision and recorded a finding of conviction
This Statutory First Appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (in short the `Special Court Act’) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2004 passed by the Special Court at Bombay in Suit No.4 of 1998.
The necessary facts, in brief are, that the show cause notice dated 15.2.1999 was issued to the assessee alleging that it had wrongly taken credit to the extent of 5,37,799 under Rule 57A of the Rules, during August 1998.
After the Maruti Suzuki decision of the Supreme Court, the scope of the term “input” to determine eligibility to CENVAT Credit, appeared to have been narrowed down. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., UP v. CCE, Meerut-1 on the issue of admissibility of CENVAT Credit of duty paid on welding electrodes used in maintenance of machines decided that the ratio in Maruti Suzuki in relation to the interpretation of the definition of ‘input’ required reconsideration and directed that the issue be placed before the larger bench of the Supreme Court.
A chartered accountant who is not a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India but impersonating as one can be charged under the Indian Penal Code or under other laws for offences, the Supreme Court stated while allowing the appeal of the institute. The Madhya Pradesh high court had taken a different view. In this case, ICAI vs Vimal Kumar, the institute filed a complaint before the police alleging forgery and impersonation. The trial court ruled that there was no basis for framing charges under IPC. The high court rejected the appeal of the institute stating that though a case was made out under the Chartered Accountants Act, the complaint was not under that Act, but under IPC. The institute appealed to the Supreme Court which set aside the high court judgment and directed prosecution under IPC.
The appellant is an association of leasing and financial companies. The appellant had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the levy of Service Tax imposed on the financial leasing services covered under ‘Banking and other financial services’ as ultra vires the legislative competence of the Parliament. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition. The appellant filed civil appeal in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court directs that since, foundational facts could not be established by way of writ petition, the taxpayer should be relegated to adopt proceedings before various Income-tax authorities. Thus, the Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to continue with the reassessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supreme Court in the context of Transfer Pricing Provisions of Section 92 to 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), has directed Assessing Officer (AO)/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to expeditiously hear and dispose of pending proceedings and to decide independently on the merits of case, uninfluenced by the observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (High Court). The Apex Court has further ruled if the taxpayer is aggrieved by the order passed by AO/ TPO, it will have to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act.
