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...
Whether income returned was a profit or loss, was really of no consequence. Therefore, even if no tax was payable, the penalty was still leviable. It is in that context, to be noted that even prior to the amendment it could not be read to mean that if no tax was payable by the Assessee, due to filing of return, disclosing loss, the Assessee was not liable to pay penalty even if the Assessee had concealed and/or furnished inadequate particulars. The necessary consequence thereof would be that 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 aforesaid position is no more res integra and it stands answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.
The business of the erstwhile company will be continued to be carried by the amalgamated company; if the amalgamated company is deprived of the said benefit, it will frustrate the very purpose of amalgamation and defeat the order of amalgamation passed by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under the Companies Act.
The Challenge to the NCLT & NCALT: The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India Justice KG Balakrishnan, Justice RV Raveendran, Justice DK Jain, Justice P Sathasivam and Justice JM Panchal has delivered its judgment on the legality of the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal under the Companies Act, 1956 through Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002.
UOI vs. R. Gandhi (Supreme Court – 5 Judges). Parliament is competent to constitute Tribunals for special Acts. However, the failure to ensure independence of judiciary and separation of judicial and executive power renders the Company Law Tribunal unconstitutional. Suggestions given on how to remedy the defects.
In a landmark judgment, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the legality of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, providing for the establishment of the National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal to deal exclusively with the company cases for their speedy disposal.
The five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the National Company Law Tribunal can be set up only after amending the law. But, it did not decide on the fate of the National Tax Tribunal, another important body envisaged as a fast-track alternative disputes resolution mechanism.
A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will deliver on Tuesday a much-awaited judgment on the formation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The decision is unanimous and it comes six years after the court admitted the appeal.
The assessee filed a Nil return after claiming depreciation. The AO disallowed depreciation but still assessed the total income at Rs. Nil. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on the disallowance which was deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that as the returned income and the assessed income was Nil, penalty could not be levied. The department filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on the basis that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied where the returned and assessed income were Nil.
In what could be a severe blow to Anil Ambani group seeking cheap gas from elder brother Mukesh- led RIL, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that government has the last word on pricing and utilisation of national asset.
Narco, polygraph and brain mapping tests can no more be conducted on anyone, either an accused or a suspect, without his/her consent, the Supreme Court said Wednesday in a ruling that was hailed by activists and lawyers. A bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal said the forcible administration of these tests was “an unwarranted intrusion into the personal liberty” of those facing criminal offences.
