Corporate Law : Supreme Court restores citizenship of Muslim man after 12 years, ruling it a 'grave miscarriage of justice' due to lack of evidenc...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court mandates that bail orders must furnish reasons, presuming non-application of mind otherwise, emphasizing judicia...
Corporate Law : Learn about the Supreme Courts landmark judgment allowing Muslim women divorced via triple talaq to claim maintenance under Sectio...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rules that bail conditions cant mandate police to track accused's movements, upholding the right to privacy under Ar...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court has issued guidelines to ensure respectful and accurate portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media, prom...
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 ...
Goods and Services Tax : > The dismissal of Department’s SLP against order of Hon’ble Calcutta Hight Court by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour...
Corporate Law : Explore the Collegium's recommendations for filling vacancies in the Supreme Court of India. Learn about the selection criteria an...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court verdict on Maruti Wire INDS. Pvt. Ltd. vs S.T.O. examines penal interest under Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. L...
Custom Duty : Supreme Court's judgment in Pratibha Processors vs Union of India clarifies the interpretation of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act...
Income Tax : Understand the Supreme Court ruling on whether interest paid under the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 qualifies as a deduction unde...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging the 2018 judgment on the Aadhaar Act being classified as a 'Mone...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court's verdict on whether a company's purchase of a car for a director's personal use falls under 'commercial purpose' as...
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...
ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court)- Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified,
Mysodet (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) -Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories vs. CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that in the absence of export profits deduction u/s 80-HHC was not available,
CIT vs. Gold Coin Health – The recommendations of the Wanchoo Committee and the CBDT Circular make it clear that the amendment to Expl. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) was to make explicit what was otherwise implicit i.e. that penalty can be imposed even in a case where the assessment results in a loss.
Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Where the department sought condonation of delay of several months in filing appeals in several matters and explained the reasons for the delay in a casual and negligent manner and without giving even the basic details,
State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) -Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable.
CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas (Supreme Court) – Where the Assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of a different exchaneg rate which exercise resulted into a loss on conversion of foreign currency to the assessee and the AO held the loss to be a notional loss
A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal (Supreme Court) – (i) A development agreement is one where the land-holder provides the land. The Builder puts up a building. Thereafter, the land owner and builder share the constructed area. The builder delivers the `owner’s share’ to the land-holder and retains the `builder’s share’. The land-holder sells/transfers undivided share/s in the land corresponding to the Builder’s share of the building to the builder or his nominees. The land-holder will have no say or control in the construction or have any say as to whom and at what cost the builder’s share of apartments are to be dealt with or disposed of. Such an agreement is not a joint venture in the legal sense. It is a contract for services.
Gangadharan vs. CIT (Supreme Court) Held, by 3 judge Bench, resolving conflict of opinion amongst other benches of the SC, that: (1) merely because in some cases the revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts.
Where the High Court dismissed the appeals filed against a PSU on the ground that an application for permission of the COD had not been obtained within the period of 30 days as laid down in ONGC’s case, held that there was actually no rigid time frame indicated by the Supreme Court. The emphasis on one month’s time was to show urgency needed.
