Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court upheld Section 69 GST arrest powers, requiring recorded reasons, CrPC safeguards, CBIC instructions and limiting arr...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held excise duty paid by buyers formed part of turnover, discussed colourable devices, and distinguished legitim...
Corporate Law : A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not affirm the High Court's reasoning or constitute law under Article 141. The doctrine of...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that summoning hotel booking records and call detail records to prove adultery does not violate privacy, a...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court agreed to examine allegations that bank dues were settled at steep discounts through ARCs, while clarifying that...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : Justice BR Gavai sworn in as India's 52nd Chief Justice. Focus areas include addressing case pendency and improving court infrastr...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Corporate Law : SC held a Ministers statement binds the Government only if it reflects the Governments view and declined to issue speech guideline...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court granted bail under the PMLA, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, delayed trial, parity with co-accused, ...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court set aside the High Court's PMLA bail order for failure to apply Section 45 twin conditions and remanded the matter f...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court declined to refer the Article 370 challenge to a larger Bench, holding there was no conflict between earlier Constit...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court upheld termination of a slum redevelopment developer for prolonged delay and reaffirmed the statutory duty and accou...
Corporate Law : The Bill seeks to amend Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for backward classes proportionate to their population identified ...
Fema / RBI : RBI directs banks, NBFCs, and other entities to implement Supreme Court’s accessibility guidelines for digital KYC, ensuring inc...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Shailendra Swarup Vs Deputy Director (Supreme Court of India) Section 68 of FERA, 1973 deals with Offences by companies. Section 68(1) provides that every person who, at the time of the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as […]
April 2020 Union of India & Ors. Vs Exide Industries Limited & Anr. (Supreme Court); Civil Appeal No. 3545/2009; 24/04/2020 Supreme court upheld the constitutional validity of section 43B(f) of income tax Act i.e. deduction is available only on actual payment of leave to the credit of employee BT India Private Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi […]
The issue before the Court was whether a memorandum of settlement required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/ was transferred in favour of the plaintiff
whether the office which is established merely for the sake of communication is covered under the character of Permanent Establishment (PE) under India-Korea DTAA?
In McDowell it was held that if a transaction was carried with an intention to avoid taxes it was up to the judiciary to decide whether the same ought to be regarded. In other words, the duty to decide the validity of the transaction was left to the court.
The issue under consideration is whether the non-compete fee could be taxed under any provision other than Section 28(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Supreme Court states that they have find from the record that the learned Single Judge had no reasonable justification to hold that the petitioner had passed a whimsical order and that it suffered from malice in fact and in law.
Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. (Supreme Court) In a recent judgment on 27th July 2020, the Supreme Court of India has concluded it shall be necessary to take note of the factors like career prospects and future advancement in life while applying the multiplier method to calculate that while applying the multiplier for providing compensation […]
SC direct that henceforth Advocate-on-Record and Party-in-Person shall file soft copy of the petition as well as the accompanying documents, filed in physical form at the filing counter of the Registry.
TDS liability on payment to non-residents which is exempt under DTAA The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of PILCOM vs CIT in SLP (CIVIL) No.7315 of 2019 has created a controversy on the withholding tax provision on the payment to be made to Non-resident. The recent judgement of Supreme Court has […]
