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...
The short point involved in the present case is whether levy of interest under Section 234A/234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory or not. At one point of time there was a doubt on the nature of interest payable by the assessee under Section 234A/234B of the Act. That controversy stood finally settled by a Five-Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others, [2001] 252 ITR 1.
Neither Section 80HH nor Section 80I (as it then stood) statutorily obliged BRPL to maintain its accounts unit-wise and that it was open to BRPL to maintain its accounts in a consolidated form in order to put an end to the litigation between the Tax Department and the PSU we remit the case to the case to the AO
The respondent in this civil appeal is Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association and the Members of the said Association are licensed Stamp Vendors. We are satisfied that 0.50% to 4% discount given to the Stamp Vendors is for purchasing the stamps in bulk quantity and the said discount is in the nature of cash discount.
The supreme court has upheld the principle of exclusion of excise duty component from valuation of closing stock in the case of Dynavision Limited (SC). The important principle laid down in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (24 ITR 481 (SC)) & Hindustan Zinc Ltd (291 ITR 391 SC)) has been reiterated in its decision :
Sub-section (1) of Section 35AB of the Act clearly states that where the assessee has paid in any previous year any lump sum consideration for acquiring any know-how for use for the purposes of his business, then one-sixth of the amount so paid shall be deducted in computing the profits and gains of the business for that previous year and the balance amount shall be deducted in equal instalments for each of the five immediately succeeding previous years.
The only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income upto the date of payment.
The ITSC could not have been satisfied as to the acceptability of the assessee’s explanation with regard to the various issues raised before it in the report of the Commissioner merely on the basis of the reports of the JDIT. Without applying its mind directly to the report of the Commissioner and the materials referred to therein, it could not have reached the conclusion that nothing more was required to be added over and above the undisclosed income of Rs. 15 lakhs disclosed by the assessee. The ITSC thus ignored relevant evidence and material which it ought to have taken into account while processing the assessee’s application. [
On facts, we find that the assessee ought to have maintained a separate account in respect of raw material which it had sold during the assessment year. If the assessee had maintained a separate account, then, in that event, a clear picture would have emerged which would have indicated the income accrued from the manufacturing activity and the income accrued on the sale of raw material.
In a major setback to the Sahara Group, the Supreme Court today directed two of its companies to refund around Rs 24,000 crore to their investors within three months with 15 per cent interest per annum. In stinging observations against the companies for violating rules and regulations in raising funds from common investors, a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and J S Khehar said that such economic offences must be dealt with iron hand.
Excise duty to be computed on the basis of manufacturing cost plus profit where the goods are sold at a price below the cost of production : It was held that commercial cost of manufacturing the cars was not reflected in the assessable value declared by the assessee.
