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...
Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
“It is true that the Division Bench of the High Court has borrowed extensively from the orders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner and passed them off as if they were themselves the author’s,” noted the apex court. “We feel that quoting from an order of some authority particularly a specialised one cannot per se be faulted as this procedure can often help in making for brevity and precision, but we agree with Mr Vahanavati to the extent that any `borrowed words’ used in a judgment must be acknowledged as such in any appropriate manner as a courtesy to the true author(s).”
The Supreme Court has said that an Assessee cannot claim deduction under section 80-HHC of the I-T Act for losses suffered on transactions. The apex court ruled that the meaning of profits under the provision of the Act would not include losses. Even if there are losses, they have to be ignored for the beneficiary purpose of such deduction, it added.
the short question for determination is, Whether operating systems (software) which controls the working of the computer and which is preloaded in the laptop (notebook) is classifiable as a separate entity under CTH 85.24 at ‘nil’ rate of duty or as an integral part of the laptop under CTH 84.71 at the appropriate rate of duty.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Catapharma (India) (P.) Ltd.- Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Deductions – Exporters – Assessment year 1997-98 – Whether excise duty and sales tax form part of total turnover while computing deduction under section 80HHC – Held, no.
Tax can be recovered only when it becomes debt due from assessee and it becomes a debt due when notice of demand is served – tax recovery officer cannot file claim against property attached by court : SC
Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Applicability of Act – Whether co-operative banks established under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, transacting business of banking, do not fall within meaning of ‘banking company’ as defined in section 5(c) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and, therefore, provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, by invoking doctrine of incorporation, are not applicable to recovery of dues by such co-operative banks from their members – Held, yes
1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter referred to as), are filed against the common order dated December 31, 2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in three batches of appeals relating to orders under Sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 271C relating to the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97.
Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji—hereinafter called the respondent—was a trader in Malabar produce, cloth, pepper and other commodities. For the assessment year 1945-46, the respondent submitted a return disclosing a net business loss of Rs. 7,960. The Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, District Malabar, completed the assessment on March 29, 1946,
Explore the Supreme Court’s verdict in S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (Appeals) Chandigarh & Anr. regarding the allowability of interest on borrowed capital under Section 36(1)(iii). Understand the critical considerations for deductions, including the importance of commercial expediency. Learn how the Court’s insights impact cases involving advances to sister concerns and the nexus between borrowed funds and business purposes. Get a comprehensive understanding of the legal perspectives on interest deduction in business transactions.
