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...
Where the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeal by a non-reasoned order, held that a statutory appeal could not be disposed of in that manner. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless.
Where the High Court was satisfied that the assessment order had been back-dated and directed that a fresh order be passed by a different AO and the assessee filed an appeal arguing that the assessment proceedings should have been declared null and void,
CIT vs. Divine Leasing & Finance (SC) – The amount of share application money received by a Company from alleged bogus shareholders cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under S. 68 of I. T. Act for the simple reason that if the names of the alleged bogus shareholders are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law.
In American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute vs. CBDT 2008 (301) ITR 86 SC, the Supreme Court analysed the provision and found that the second proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) lays down the powers and duties of the prescribed authority for vetting an application for approval and that the prescribed
Whether oil rigs engaged in operations in the exclusive economic zone/ continental shelf of India, falling outside the territorial waters of India, are foreign going vessels as defined by Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962, and are entitled to consume imported stores thereon without payment of customs duty in terms of Section 87 of the Customs Act, 1962?
Tribunal has rejected the appeals filed by the appellants and held that the appellants had not satisfied the conditions for availing the benefit of the Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23rd July 1996 on the ground that the copper waste and scrap used by the appellants had been imported and had not been generated in the factory of production.
As per the Explanatory Notes to HSN the parts falling under Chapter Heading 8710 would be covered under the said chapter, provided they fulfill both the conditions i.e. they must be identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally for such vehicles and that they must not be excluded by the provisions of Notes to Section XVII. The identifiable parts under the said heading bodies of armoured vehicles and parts thereof, cover special road wheels for armoured cars, propulsion wheels for tanks, tracts etc.
CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) – In the case of a chit fund following the ‘completed contract method of accounting’ and offering income at the end of the chit, held, approving the method: (i) Recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of accounting including the completed contract method or the percentage of completion method.
CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court) – In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period; (2) unless a new statute expressly or by necessary implication says so, it will not be presumed that it deprives a person of an accrued right. On the ther hand, a law which is procedural in nature, and does not affect the rights, is retrospectively applicable;
Munjal Sales vs. CIT (Supreme Court) – (i) A firm seeking to claim deduction of interest paid on capital from its partners has to first satisfy the requirements of s. 36(1)(iii) and thereafter the limits imposed by s. 40(b)(iv). The fact that the said capital is not loans or advances is irrelevant.
