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...
It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.
Civil Appeals Nos 6082, 6083, 6084, 6085 and 6086 of 1990 and 5516 of 1997 (Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1983 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos 1065-69 of 1977 and 1070-74 of 1977),
SEN, J. The point that falls for determination in this case is whether a sum of Rs. 79 lakhs representing Debenture Redemption Reserve was includible in computing the capital of the assessee Company for the purpose of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The High Court took the view that the amount set apart to redeem the debentures has to be treated as ‘provision’ and not as ‘reserve’.
Since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs 3,00,000 in that accounting year This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year
Dismissing the appeal filled by the Revenue and the cross appeal of the assessee, this Court HELD : 1.1. An educational society or Trust or other similar body running an educational institution solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profits could be regarded as `other educational institution’ coming within Section 10(22) of the Act. [954-F]
The special excise duty was being levied from 1963 upto 1971 by various Finance Acts passed from time to time. It was discontinued from 1972 until 1978 when it was revived by the Finance Act, 1978. Thereafter, it was being levied from year to year by annual Finance Acts.The provisions of these Finance Acts,insofar as the levy of special excise duty is concerned,are identical
Explore the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (Commissioner of Income Tax) and understand whether the apparent can be considered as real. The judgment emphasizes the application of the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances in taxation matters. Learn about the key findings of the court, the relevance of the case in assessing income, and the caution against the indiscriminate application of the judgment in various scenarios.
Hind Wire Industries Ltd. V CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 SC- What falls for consideration in the present case is the interpretation of the expression from the date of the order sought to be amended in sub-section (7) of section 154 as it stood then It is obvious that the word order has not been qualified in any way and it does not necessarily mean the original order It can be any order including the amended or rectified order.
he Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- Is the State vicariously liable for negligence of its officers in discharge of their statutory duties, was answered in the negative by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ratio laid down by this Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P
The Apex Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 held that a law which affects the substantive rights of any of the parties, the law cannot be retrospective. Every party has a vested right in substantative law but no such right exists in procedural law.
