Goods and Services Tax : The Finance Act, 2025 retrospectively amended Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act after the Supreme Court allowed ITC on certain comm...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that liabilities arising from corporate guarantees qualify as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Inso...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that a shortfall payment clause in a Deed of Hypothecation can qualify as a contract of guarantee under th...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about earlier rulings denying bail in UAPA cases, holding that smaller benches ca...
Income Tax : The article explains the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 ruling that broken period interest on debt securities is capital in natur...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : Justice BR Gavai sworn in as India's 52nd Chief Justice. Focus areas include addressing case pendency and improving court infrastr...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings arising from a Section 74 GST order while examining whether writ petitions can be ent...
Finance : The Supreme Court refused relief to borrowers who defaulted from the very first instalment after availing an ₹8.09 crore loan. T...
Finance : The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The C...
Income Tax : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d...
Corporate Law : The Bill seeks to amend Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for backward classes proportionate to their population identified ...
Fema / RBI : RBI directs banks, NBFCs, and other entities to implement Supreme Court’s accessibility guidelines for digital KYC, ensuring inc...
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...
In Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (Supra), the issue before this Court was whether the products manufactured by the assessee would fall under Sub-Heading 3003.30 as medicament or under Chapter 33 as cosmetics. The assessee contended that each of the products was having ayurvedic medicinal herbs in it and even the labels on these products claim specifically the medicinal properties of the product. The assessee further urged that even if the user of product leads to improvement in appearance of a person that by itself cannot bring it into the category of “cosmetics” if otherwise the product is having a medicinal value and is marketed as such.
Income Tax Department filed an appeal u/s 260A in 2006 where the tax effect was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. High Court, relying on Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Income Tax Department challenged the decision on the ground that para 11 of Instruction No. 3/2011 Dated 9-2-2011 made it clear that it would apply only to appeals filed on or after 9.2.2011 and not to appeals filed earlier.
Explore the Supreme Court’s ruling in Customs Appeal 1150/2004 between Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, and Denso Kirloskar Industries. Details on CESTAT judgment.
SC held that So far as the special discount is concerned, all that the authorities have to look into whether as a matter of fact, the petitioner received only the sum originally charged less the discount. It is the look out of the traders to see that the trade increase and it is for that purpose the trade discount is given. Hence, a person may not be able to clearly prove as to why the special discount was given. But if there has been a consistent practice of giving special discount, that has to be accepted by the assessing authority. The Assessing Authority shall not reject the appellants’ claim for exemption of the amounts of trade discount solely on the ground that the discount amounts were not shown in the sale invoices.
CCE Vs. M/s. Plaxair India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)- In the present case, it is the stand of the assessee that the assessee had paid the duty under the provisions of the Act before the issue of the Show Cause Notice and, therefore, not liable for the payment of penalty and interest on the duty so paid under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Dakshin Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Geeta S. Johari (Supreme Court)- The SC ruled, that if a disputing party asks its rival to appoint an arbitrator according to their agreement and if it is not complied with, the former can approach a court for appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. After that, the arbitrator appointed by the court will proceed with the arbitration.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent appearing in-person, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the High Court does not require any interference, particularly when the issue raised in this Appeal has already been decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.1932 of 1982, wherein it was categorically held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public servant
We have today delivered judgment in Civil Appeal arising out SLP (C) No.26558 of 2010 (M/s Topman Exports v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai) and other connected appeals setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of the Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals. We have also delivered a separate judgment in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32450 of 2010 (M/s ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai) and other connected appeal affirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (supra). These two appeals are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid two judgments. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Central Government has issued a Notification dated 01.03.2002 and in the said Notification it has classified the Electronic Automatic Regulators under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. In the present appeal, the Revenue effect is less than Rs.6 lacs and since the Revenue itself has classified the goods in dispute under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89 from 01.03.2002, it may not be necessary for this Court to consider in detail the appeal filed by the assessee. In that view of the matter, for the period after 01.03.2002, in view of the Notification issued by the Central Government, the goods, namely Electronic Automatic Regulators would fall under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89. With this observation and clarification, this appeal is disposed of. No costs.
After hearing the matter for some time, we notice that the Revenue has not produced the order passed by CESTAT dated 10.01.2010 and the only order produced by them is the interim passed by CESTAT and not the final orders against which the appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the High Court. . In the absence of the order passed by the CESTAT on merits, which has been affirmed by the High Court, it would not be proper for us to decide the lis between the parties. Further, we would be handicapped while appreciating the stand of the Assessee as well as the Revenue, while appreciating the legal issues that the parties would urge before us. In that view of the matter, we reject the appeal solely on the ground that the Revenue has not filed the appropriate papers before this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
