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...
CIT vs. Bhari Information Tech Systems (Supreme Court of India)- Deduction under Section 80HHC (Section 80HHE also falls in Chapter VI‐A) is to be worked out not on the basis of regular income tax profits but it has to be worked out on the basis of the adjusted book profits in a case where Section 115JA is applicable. In the said judgment the dichotomy between regular income tax profits and adjusted book profits under Section 115JA is clearly brought out.
Whilst the principle and the object is unexceptionable and laudatory, experience has shown that despite best efforts of the CoD , the mechanism has not achieved the results for which it was constituted and has in fact led to delays in litigation. On same set of facts, clearance is given in one case and refused in the other. This has led a PSU to institute a SLP in this Court on the ground of discrimination. The mechanism was set up with a laudatory object. However, the mechanism has led to delay in filing of civil appeals causing loss of revenue. The mechanism has outlived its utility.
Although, the respondent has pleaded that it was done out of ignorance, but there appears to be an intention to evade excise duty and contravention of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, proviso of Section 11A ( i ) of the Act would get attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The cause of action, i.e., date of knowledge could be attributed to the department in the year 1997. If the period of limitation of five years is computed from the aforesaid date, the show cause notice having been issued on 15.5.2000, the demand made was clearly within the period of limitation as prescribed, which is five years.
Service Tax – Commercial Training or Coaching Service– In view of insertion of explanation in section 65 (105)(zzc) w.e.f 01.07.2003, Tribunal decision liable to be set aside– Matter remanded to Tribunal for de novo consideration. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 5453 of 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX […]
U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Lucknow, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2011, Supreme Court of India, dated : 12.01.2011 (In favour of Revenue) Brief Fact of the Case: (a) UPSRTC had taken busses on rent for carrying of passengers from private bus operators under individual contracts. […]
The AAI entered into a licence agreement with the appellant by which the appellant was entrusted with the responsibility and the activity of collecting airport admission ticket charges on behalf of AAI Limited at Karipur Airport, Calicut. As per the said agreement the appellant was permitted to collect Rs . 50/- per visitor as airport admission ticket charges for which the appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs . 2,66,797/- per month as licence fee.
Union Of India Vs Indian National Shipowners Ass & Ors (Supreme Court of India)- None of the entries in the Schedule could be strictly said to be a service rendered in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas. There is justification in the findings arrived at by the High Court. The nature of work which […]
The second contention of the learned senior counsel for appellants was that the acquisition of the appellants’ land by the Government was for the purposes of the Corporation and the Corporation being a ‘company’ for the purposes of the Act, the contemplated in Part VII of the Act was required to be mandatorily followed and since the said procedure has not been followed, the acquisition is bad in law. In this regard, Mr. Pallav Shishodia placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Raja Ram and others4.
Under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/court cannot award compensation amount exceeding the claimed amount. The function of the Tribunal/court is to award just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. Further, in such cases there is no question of claim becoming time-barred or it cannot be contended that by enhancing the claim there would be change of cause of action. It is also to be stated that as provided under sub-section (4) to Section 166, even the report submitted to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the MV Act. If required, in appropriate cases, the court may permit amendment to the claim petition.”
The Supreme Court has said that alterations made in the will by a person do not have legal sanctity unless corrections are executed in the same manner as was done in the case of the original documents. A SC bench said those claiming benefits under an altered will must prove with convincing evidence that the testator did make such alterations to the original will in conformity with the rules governing the Indian Succession Act.
