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 Supreme Court has held that banks are liable to compensate a customer whose money is wrongly paid to another person without verifying the original signature of the account-holder as it amounted to deficiency of service. A bench of Justices D K Jain and T S Thakur said the bank was guilty of honouring the cheque presented by the fraudster by releasing an amount over and above the amount in the account even though the customer Gurnam Singh had no overdraft facility.
The test for determining whether “manufacture” can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity, which is subjected to a process can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognized in trade as a new and distinct commodity; the word “production”,
M/s. Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills (P) Ltd. (“assessee/SMMP Ltd.”), engaged in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, incurred expenditure on replacement of machinery. While on one hand, SMMP Ltd. capitalized the said expenditure in its books of account and in its return of income, on the other, the same was claimed as revenue expenditure on the basis that such expenditure was merely incurred on replacement of spare parts in the spinning mill system.
Secure Meters Ltd. („the assessee?) is engaged in the business of manufacture of energy meters. The Assessing Officer (AO) inter-alia disallowed expenses on the issue of convertible debentures on the basis that it was capital in nature. This was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („Tribunal?), however, held that the expenses on issue of debentures was allowable as a revenue expenditure. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court.
Whether the rate prescribed by the Agreement between the assessee(s) and the Federation(s) is a composite charge, as submitted by the assessee(s), or whether the said rate is exclusively for ginning and pressing de hors the godown rent
The assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 in which it claimed that the subsidy received by it from the government was a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in view of P.J. Chemicals Ltd 210 ITR 830 (SC). The Petition was allowed by the CIT.
We find no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department for the following reasons: firstly, as stated above, Section 43-B [main section], which stood inserted by Finance Act, 1983, with effect from 1st April, 1984, expressly commences with a non-obstante clause
As per the letter of the Central Government dated 9-7-1973, all State-controlled Educational Committee(s) /Board(s) have been constituted to implement the Educational policy of the States(s), consequently, they should be treated as Educational Institution within the meaning of section 10(22).
we find that in the declaration(s) even though the assessee had doubts about the excisability of the said item and even though the assessee had sought clarification as far back on 5th September, 1994; they did not mention the word Scrabble in the body of the declaration(s) filed with the Department. They did not mention the details of the game Scrabble. Therefore, this conduct of the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee herein deliberately declared branded goods under sub-heading 9403.00 of the CETA to avoid any enquiry in the matter by the Department. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Department was justified in invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act.
Once it is found that “Right to Natural Justice” is a “personal & individual right”, the person concerned can always waive such right. But the moot question is “whether principles of natural justice are personal individual rights?” This paper attempts to examine this question and waiver of such right if it is not a personal individual right.
