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...
Unless the conduct of the party suggests that it had a mala fide intent, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. An attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits, rather than to conclude it merely on the basis of technicalities.
Challenge in this batch of appeals filed by the revenue under Section 35(L)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”) is to the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone (for short “the Tribunal”), inter alia, holding that the duty of Central Excise on shrimps and shrimp seeds produced and removed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the assessee”), a 100% Export Oriented Unit (for short “EOU”), in the Domestic Tariff Area (for short “DTA”) without the approval of the Development Commissioner, would be payable under Section 3(1) of the Act and not under the proviso appended thereto.
S. 94(7) was inserted prospectively w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to disallow dividend stripping losses. If the argument of the Revenue that even transactions prior to s. 94(7) can be disallowed is accepted, it will render s. 94(7) redundant and also lead to anomalous results.
The notification dt . 10th of September, 2004 was issued and made effective from the date of its issuance. The same did not include the concept of “computer training institute” within its ambit and under the aforesaid notification, exemption was only granted to vocational and recreational training institute. A computer training institute which is defined and was included in the notification dt . 20th June, 2003 was specifically excluded from the purview of the notification dt. 10th Sept ., 2004. The Central Government while doing so was fully conscious of the implication thereof and also of the fact as to what constitutes a computer training institute as defined in the notification dt. 20th June, 2003.
This Article summarizes the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.(Assessee) [2010-VIL12-SC-CB] on the issue of eligibility of a local manufacturer/dealer to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) if the sale is a penultimate sale made to the exporter in connection to the export of goods. The SC held that if there is an inextricable link between the last sale and the export of goods, the same would be exempt under section 5 (3) of the CST Act.
In a significant case relating to Customs Valuation, a recent judgement dated 26.07.2010 of the Honorable Supreme Court has confirmed the duty demand against a leading importer of Whiskeys, M/s Pernod Ricard India Private Limited (earlier known as Seagram India Private Limited). The case pertains to imports between 1994 and 2001 involving duty evasion of about Rs 40 Crores. M/s Seagram would thus have to deposit this entire amount now. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition finalization of provisional assessments on imports of the goods by M/s Seagram from 2001 is likely to result in significant revenue to the government.
Once section 249(4)(a) is treated as a mandatory condition for filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals) and once that condition stood satisfied at the time of his filing an appeal to CIT (Appeals), then, there was no necessity for the assessee to once again pay the admitted tax due as a condition precedent to his filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).
Even if assessee has disclosed nil income and on verification of the record, it is found that certain income has been concealed or has wrongly been shown, in that case, penalty can still be levied.
The demand for electricity bill arrears cannot be raised once again against the buyer of an industrial unit which had cleared the dues, the Supreme Court ruled in the appeal case, Haryana State Electricity Board vs Hanuman Rice Mills. Hanuman mills had bought the Durga Rice Mills and had cleared the electricity bills due to the board.
No appeal lies to SC u/s 10 of Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 against interlocutory orders passed by Special Court
