Corporate Law : SC judgment: Anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly in economic offences, especially for those evading legal processes. Acc...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, citing consensual relationship from the beginning despite a promise of marriage. Court emphasizes...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court notes UP rule of law issues. West UP, with most pending cases, lacks a High Court Bench, forcing long, costly travel...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court acquits man convicted for abetting wife's suicide, stating harassment allegations insufficient for Section 306 IPC c...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rules in Ashish Kakkar case that an arrest memo does not fulfill the legal requirement of furnishing grounds of arre...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Income Tax : Government addresses Supreme Court judgment on tax exemptions for clergy and its implications on Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) u...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rejects regularisation of illegal constructions, irrespective of occupancy or investments, and calls for action agai...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court Collegium recommends three advocates—Ajay Digpaul, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, and Shwetasree Majumder—for ...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Corporate Law : SC rules Sub-Registrars cannot verify vendor’s title during registration; Rule 55A(i) of Tamil Nadu Registration Rules declared ...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court declares Rule 55A(i) of Registration Rules ultra vires, stating Sub-Registrar's duty is procedural, not title verifi...
Corporate Law : SC held that a duly signed cheque, even if filled by someone other than drawer, can invoke Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments A...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rules in Batliboi v HPCL that arbitral damages must reflect actual loss, not be a windfall. Discusses formulae flaws...
Income Tax : Supreme Court sets aside High Court ruling in S.M. Overseas tax case, restores ITAT order on reassessment under Sections 147/148 o...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
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...
These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 15th November, 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which, while confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs held that drawings, designs etc. relating to machinery or industrial technology were goods which were leviable to duty of customs on their transaction value at the time of their import.
Sale price means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for transfer of goods on hire purchase. The word sale occurring in Sec. 2(h) must have the meaning ascribed to it as in Section 2(g) when the word sale includes transfer of goods on hire purchase, then whatever is the amount which is paid/payable to the dealer on such a transfer would be included within the meaning
Law is settled- If a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible
The High Court relying on Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and following the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of C.I.T., U.P. v. Wheeler Club Limited {(1963) 49 ITR 52} and some observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T., Delhi-II v. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. (155 ITR 373)
Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Ashok Desai, Shri V. Gauri Shankar, Dr. D.P. Pal, Shri Joseph Vellapally, Shri K.N. Shukla, Shri Pallav Shishodia, Shri A.P. Medh, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Shri B.K. Prasad, Shri S.N. Terdol, Shri S. Rajappa, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Shri N.L. Garg, Shri C.V. Subba Rao, Shri Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Shri S.K. Dwivedi, Shri Tarun Gulati
The appellant-assessee is a private limited company. During the assessment year 1981-82 (accounting year ending on March 31, 1981), the assessee had purchased for the use of its staff seven low income group houses from the Housing Board. The assessee had made part payments and was in turn made allotment of the houses followed by delivery of possession
Common questions involved in these appeals are whether the job rendered by a photographer in taking photographs, developing and printing films would amount to a works contract as contemplated under Article 366(2A)(b) of the Constitution read with Section 2(n) of the M.P.General Sales Tax for the purpose of levy of sales tax on business turnover of the photographers.
Answers given by the High Court that (i) the assessee who made the payments to the three non-residents was under obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act in respect of the sums paid to them under the contracts entered into; and (ii) the obligation of the respondent-assessee to deduct tax under Section 195 is limited only to appropriate proportion of income chargeable under the Act, are correct.
CIT V Keshri Metal Pvt Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 165 SC- Under the provisions of Section 154 there has to be a mistake apparent from the record. In other words, a look at the record must show there has been an error, and that error may be rectified. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to satisfy us that it shows any apparent error upon the record.
The current Section 44AB of the IT Act has been challenged by the Appellant on behalf of the Income Tax Practitioners. The Appellant contends that the Income Tax Practitioners should be entitled to be authorized representatives and that they are excluded for auditing accounts which violates their Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
