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...
It is evident from the facts of the case that an automatic voltage stabilizer involves the operation of a number of electronic components. A voltage stabilizer might have many components some of which use electricity. This cannot be the sole reason for classifying it as an electrical good. As noticed earlier, an electrical device can be an electronic device, but an electronic device cannot be an electrical device. The Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority after taking into consideration the components of voltage stabilizer, the purpose for which it is used and the principles on which it works has come to the conclusion that the voltage stabilizer is electronic goods, for the purpose of taxation under U.P. Trade Tax Act, we are in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
The CBI is looking into bad debt write-offs by some of the banks and financial institutions involved in the kickbacks-for-loan rackets it busted last week. Two of them — Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Bank of India — have written off almost Rs 400
Companies seeking exemption from disclosure norms before tapping the capital market can only do so with the prior consent of market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Supreme Court has ruled. The apex court’s direction cam
In this case Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dealt with the issue of allowability of losses on account of unmatured forward contracts in foreign exchange entered into by the taxpayer. The Special Bench while dismissing the contentions of the tax department held that the loss on unmatured forward contracts is in the nature of anticipated losses and not a contingent loss. The Special Bench observed that a binding obligation (although not fully ascertainable) arose against the taxpayer the moment it entered into forward foreign exchange contract. The Special Bench has relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor of India [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court had held that exchange fluctuation loss arising on mark- to-market restatement of liability which is revenue in nature is an allowable loss. The Special Bench further observed that where profits were being taxed by the tax department in respect of such unmatured foreign exchange contracts then there was no reason to disallow the loss on such contracts.
In a major relief for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that there has been no intention on the PM’s part to block Subramaniam Swamy’s complaint in the 2G spectrum case.The Supreme Court was hearing the affidavit
The Supreme Court has held that differential treatment does not per se amount to violation of Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution. It violates Article 14 only when there is no conceivable reasonable basis and makes the working of the executive
Company argued it was following globally accepted norms. The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the prosecution of soft drink giant PepsiCo by the Kerala government over the pesticide content found in its bottles picked at random from the market. A thre
In Coca Cola India Inc vs. ACIT 309 ITR 194 the P&H High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Chapter X & laid down far-reaching principles on the applicability of transfer pricing provisions to cases where the non-resident was also assessed in India and there was supposedly no cross-border transaction or erosion of tax revenue. On appeal by the assessee, HELD disposing off the SLP: “The issue in this special leave petition concerns the application of the principle of Transfer Pricing. In the case of assessee herein, Notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act for some of the Assessment Years. On the question of jurisdiction, a writ petition was filed by the assessee, which has been disposed of by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction. However, on going through the papers, we find that foundational facts are required to be established which could not have been done by way of writ petition. For the afore-stated reasons, we are of the view that the assessee should be relegated to adopt proceedings, which are pending, as of date, before various Authorities under the Act … We, accordingly, direct these Authorities to expeditiously hear and dispose of pending proceedings as early as possible. If the petitioner-assessee herein is aggrieved by the orders passed by any of these Authorities, it will have to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act. We make it clear that each of the Authorities will decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned judgement.”
Supreme Court disposed off a civil appeal arising out of a special leave petition involving a transfer pricing dispute, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India ltd. v. ADIT [Civil Appeal No. 8457 of 2010].The Delhi High Court , in the taxpayer’s case, had earlier, inter-alia held that the obligatory use of brand/logo of a foreign associated enterprise should be accompanied either by an appropriate payment by the foreign trademark owner or by a rebate to the Indian licensee. Furthermore, the HC also held that if the advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses incurred by a domestic enterprise, being even an entrepreneurial licensed manufacturer, which mandatorily uses the brand/logo of a foreign associated enterprise, are more than those incurred by independent domestic comparables, the foreign associated enterprise should provide arm’s length compensation to the domestic enterprise. Such compensation would be required for brand building and increased brand awareness in the domestic market, i.e., for creation of marketing intangible for the foreign associated enterprise.
Cooperative housing societies can expel a member for owning more than one property as acquiring concessional government land cannot be a ruse to accumulate wealth, the Supreme Court has ruled.
