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...
WEP Peripherals Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Supreme Court)- The only question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether the adjudicating authority was entitled to load the royalty/licence fee payment on to the price of the imported goods, viz, the shuttle(s) by taking its peak price. In the present case, the importer/buyer used to negotiate with the foreign supplier on quarterly basis.
Imagic Creative (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Payments of service tax as also the VAT are mutually exclusive. Therefore, they should be held to be applicable having regard to the respective parameters of service tax and the sales tax as envisaged in a composite contract as contradistinguished from an indivisible contract. It may consist of different elements providing for attracting different nature of levy. It was, therefore, difficult to hold that in a case of instant nature, sales tax would be payable on the value of the entire contract, irrespective of the element of service provided. The approach of the assessing authority, thus, appeared to be correct.
the assessee advanced interest free loan to its sister concern amounting to Rs.5 lacs. According to the Tribunal, there was nothing on record to show that the loans were given to the sister concern by the assessee-firm out of its Own Funds and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Munjal Sales Corporation Vs.CIT (Supreme Court)
Civil – Specific performance – Validity of – Stamp paper – Opinion of experts – Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 – Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Plaintiff-Appellant alleged that the First Defendant agreed to sell suit property by an agreement and received some amount as advance – Plaintiff issued a notice to execute the sale deed and receive the balance amount – Defendant denied the agreement and executed the sale deed in favour of Second Defendant – Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance – Defendant contended that the sale agreement put forth by the Plaintiff was forged and concocted – Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the sale put forth by Plaintiff was false –
1. Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High Court) – (i) The Chairman of the Settlement Commission has the power to constitute a Special Bench and he is not required to give reasons or produce the material in support thereof. (ii) It is not as if the moment an application is made and there is compliance of the requirements of Section 245-D that the Commission is bound to entertain the application and allow it. The Commission has then to consider whether the application is invalid under Section 245-D(2C). The Settlement Commission can treat the application as invalid meaning thereby non – est if the Applicant has not made a true and full disclosure and further must disclose how the income has been derived. If on the material it arrives at a conclusion even prima facie that there was no true and full disclosure it has then the right to declare the application as invalid.
Interest paid on borrowings made for purchase of capital assets “not put to use” in the concerned financial year is eligible for income tax deductions, the Supreme Court has ruled. The apex court said that all that was required is that the capital borrowed must be for the purpose of business for which interest was also paid. A bench of Justices S H Kapadia and B Sudershan Reddy passed the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by the Income Tax department. The department had filed the appeal after the appellate tribunal and the Gujarat High Court had held that the assessee company M/s Core Health Limited was not entitled to deductions under Section 36(1) and (III) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Discover the legal nuances in the Supreme Court judgment (Civil Appeal 582/2008) involving M/s Anis Ahmad and Sons versus Commissioner of Income Tax. Uncover the intricacies of the case where the appellant, a Commission Agent, challenges the classification as a ‘Trader.’ The court emphasizes that no adverse inference should be drawn due to non-appearance of certain traders and affirms the appellant’s role as an ‘Arhatiya’ (Commission Agent). Explore the details of the case and the court’s decision dated 22/01/2008.
: A search and seizure was conducted by the revenue (respondents) in the premises of the appellants (KCC software Ltd), pursuant to warrants of authorization dated 3.8.2005. On 4.8.2005 certain assets including jewellery, cash and fixed deposit receipts were seized. On that very day, appellants received a letter from the HDFC Bank at B-28, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi that operation of five bank accounts of appellant No.1 had been restrained by order issued under Section 132 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The Income Tax Department on 4.10.2005 issued two fresh warrants of authorization under Section 132 of the Act in respect of the bank accounts. On 5.10.2005 the bank accounts of the appellants were searched and seized through withdrawal of cash by demand drafts.
Commissioner of Income Central vs Suresh N. Gupta On 17.1.2001 a search under Section 132 of the 1961 Act was carried out at the premises of the respondent-assessee , an individual. The search unearthed an unexplained investment of Rs. 65,000/- being the value of household valuables and Rs. 97,427/- on account of unexplained marriage expenses (undisclosed income). Accordingly, in the block assessment, the A.O. determined the assessee’s undisclosed income at Rs. 1,62,427/-. He computed tax thereon at 60% in terms of Section 113 of the 1961 Act amounting to Rs. 97,456/- on which surcharge was levied at 17%, i.e., Rs. 16,504/-. The levy of surcharge was challenged by the assessee in appeal before the CIT(A). The said appeal was allowed. The decision of CIT(A) has been confirmed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Hence, this civil appeal.
Applications for compounding ought to be disallowed if there are such contradictions, inconsistencies or incompleteness. The reason is obvious. If the applicant is trying to hoodwink the Authority such applications would not be maintainable. That aspect is required to be kept in mind by the Compounding Authority. The test is as follows :
