Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court upheld Section 69 GST arrest powers, requiring recorded reasons, CrPC safeguards, CBIC instructions and limiting arr...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held excise duty paid by buyers formed part of turnover, discussed colourable devices, and distinguished legitim...
Corporate Law : A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not affirm the High Court's reasoning or constitute law under Article 141. The doctrine of...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that summoning hotel booking records and call detail records to prove adultery does not violate privacy, a...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court agreed to examine allegations that bank dues were settled at steep discounts through ARCs, while clarifying that...
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...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court dismissed a miscellaneous application challenging its signed order, holding it not maintainable and imposing ₹2,00...
Income Tax : Supreme Court modified compensation by reassessing a self-employed deceased’s annual income after considering ITRs and business ...
Corporate Law : SC allowed the appeal and granted NDPS bail after holding that a case for bail was made out, subject to Trial Court conditions....
Corporate Law : SC held a Ministers statement binds the Government only if it reflects the Governments view and declined to issue speech guideline...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court granted bail under the PMLA, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, delayed trial, parity with co-accused, ...
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...
Applying the above principles to the case at hand Section 29 of the RDDB Act incorporates the provisions of the Rules found in the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act for purposes of realisation of the dues by the Recovery Officer under the RDDB Act.
Recently the Supreme Court in M/s Laxmi Dye Chem Vs State of Gujarat & Ors set aside the order of high court of which quashed the Complaints filed before the trial court u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(NI Act) for dishnour of cheques.
complaint under section 138 of the Act without signature is maintainable when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification. The prosecution of such complaint is maintainable and we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
On going through the records, we find that the issues that were raised were not discussed and dealt with by the High Court except for saying that the case is not a fit case to be interfered with. According to us, this is not a proper disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the order and remit back the matter for fresh disposal de novo in accordance with law.
i. Provide adequate infrastructure to DRTs/DRATs on the following basis: a. If sufficient space as per requirement is available in the Government building, then space from the concerned department will be allotted on a permanent basis.
The Indian law on privileged professional communication, codified under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, has developed on the same lines as UK common law. The benefit of privileged communication under sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act is available only in relation to communications and correspondences between client and attorney or advocate.
It is possible, on an interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act to answer this question either way, but unfortunately the High Court did not even notice this provision of the Act. Of course, the submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that on an interpretation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination, that the assessee had made a gift of 14,000 bonus shares to the transferee in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1989-90.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated January 14, 2013 in the case of CCE v/s M/s Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. held that even though goods manufactured by Small Scale Industries (SSI) do not physically bear brand name or logo but such manufactured goods are sold from branded sale outlets,
Notice cannot be issued when returns are pending – Notice cannot be issued unless the return which has already been filed has been disposed of – CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthukaruppan Chettiar [1970] 78 ITR 69 (SC); Bhagwan Das Sita Ram (HUF) v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 563 (SC).
Where the HUF was in existence during the relevant year and a partition took place later, for purposes of initiating reassessment proceedings for that year, it would not be necessary to issue notice to every member of the family – Lakshminarain Bhadani v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 594 (SC).
