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 assessee, a NBFC, made a ‘Provision for NPA’ in terms of the RBI Directions 1998. It claimed a deduction for the said provision u/s 36 (1)(vii) on the ground that as it was debited to the P&L Account and reduced the profits, it was a ‘write off’. In the alternative, it was claimed that there was a diminution in the value of its assets
Whether the Department is entitled to treat the ‘Provision for NPA, which in terms of RBI Directions 1998 is debited to the P&L Account, as income under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , while computing the profits and gains of the business under Sections 28 to 43D of the IT Act
In this matter, the issue which arises for determination is whether contract carriage manufactured according to specifications is tourist vehicle and whether services provided by the assessee under Contract carriage makes assessee a tour operator under Section 65(115) of the Finance Act, 1994. In our view, this question is important. It has wide implication on the revenues. We find from the impugned judgment that there is no discussion on this point.
Can a judge be asked under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as to why and how he came to a particular conclusion in a judgment? No, says the Supreme Court. The apex court saw the mischief potential of queries under the RTI Act in relation to a judge and his judgments and a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice B S Chauhan firmly said that a judge speaks through his judgments and he could not be made to answer questions relating to his verdict in a case.
The carrying of a huge sum itself gives rise to a legitimate suspicion; the intelligence officers of revenue are, therefore, entitled to satisfy themselves, not only that the money is from a legitimate source, but also satisfy themselves that such a large amount is being carried for a legitimate purpose; therefore, even if the carrier is not guilty of any offence in carrying the money, the verification or seizure may be warranted to ensure that the money is not intended for commission of a crime or offence.
owner means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc. But, in the context of section 22 of the Income-tax Act, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [2009-TIOL100-SC-IT] in the case M/s Liberty India (Taxpayer), in which the SC held that the receipts, by way of Duty Drawback and sale of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licence by the Taxpayer, do not form part of the profits ‘derived from’ the industrial undertaking (IU), eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL). The SC further held that the Duty Drawback and sale of DEPB licence are incentives which flow from the schemes framed by the Government of India (G01) and do not have any direct nexus with the profits derived from the eligible IU of the Taxpayer.
Whether amendment to Section 43B (Section) of Income Tax Act,1961, enacted with effect from 1 April 2004, is retrospectively applicable? This amendment was introduced to rationalize the tax deduction of the employer’s contribution to provident fund, superannuation fund, gratuity fund and such other funds for the welfare of employees (social security contributions).
It must be understood that right to appeal is not an absolute right nor essential ingredient of process of natural justice. Supreme Court held in Vijay Prakash v. CC [1989(39) ELT 178(SC)], “Right to appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right to appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions of the grant.”
Despite valiant attempt on the part of learned counsel for the appellant to convince us that in view of some observations in Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. & Ors., 2000(5) SCC 694, the issue raised in the present appeal requires consideration, in our judgment the issue is no more res integra. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur vs. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corp. & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 19, explaining the scope of Section 11- AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, “the Act”) which is pari materia to Section 13-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the statutory charge created under Section 11- AAAA of the said Act, the sales tax dues shall have precedence over the mortgage created in favour of the Bank.
