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...
Housing and Urban Dev Corp Ltd. Vs JCIT (Supreme Court of India)- On submission of counsel that assessee intend to make application before CBDT, the SC permitted assessee to make a representation to the CBDT, within fifteen days under s 119(2) either for the waiver of interest or to condone the delay in filing the rectification application under s 154 on account of a mistake, the interest income was offered to tax and the tax was also paid on it.
Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi- III (Supreme Court of India)- The question which arose before the Tribunal was that whether these items used for fabricating structures to support and install various machinery of the sugar plant are capital goods in terms of the Rule 57Q. The Tribunal while allowing the MODVAT credit found that these items, except MS sections and shapes, used for raising structure to support the various machines, parts of machinery of the plant would be covered by the explanation to Rule 57Q as a capital goods.
Idea Mobile Communication Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & C., Cochin (Supreme Court of India)- Amount received by the cellular telephone company from its subscribers towards SIM Card will form part of the taxable value for levy of service tax, for the SIM Cards are never sold as goods independent from services provided.
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd Vs DCIT (Supreme Court) – Failure on the part of the AO to apply section 14A of the Act when he passed the original assessment order had prima facie resulted in escapement of income. The object and purpose of the proviso to section 14A of the Act is to bar reassessment/ rectification of past cases which have attained finality and not an original assessment on the basis of retrospective amendment in the statute book.
K.E.Burgmann A/S Versus H.N.Shah & Ors (Delhi HC) – This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, delivery up of the infringing material and damages. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company registered in Denmark whereas plaintiff No. 2 is a subsidiary of plaintiff No.1 and is registered in India. Plaintiff No. 1 company was founded by Mr. Keld Ellentoft for developing, designing and manufacturing, fabric, elastomer and fluropolymer expansion joints/compensators, which are installed to accommodate thermal expansion/contraction of the ducting system due to rise and fall in temperature and claims to be a well known manufacturer of these products carrying business in several countries including U.K., Scandinavian countries,
Jalandhar Improvement Trust Vs Vinod Kumar (Supreme Court of India)- Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the land in dispute belongs to the State. It is averred by the respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in the year 1947, measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No. 16693/6729 in the 55.0 Acres Development Scheme as they were displaced persons from Pakistan.
MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr (Supreme Court of India)- Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. The Public Works Department of the State of Rajasthan (hereinafter called “PWD”) decided in September 1997 to construct the Bharatpur bye-pass for the road from Bharatpur to Mathura, which passed through a busy market of the city of Bharatpur. For the aforesaid work, tenders were invited with a stipulation that the work would be executed on the basis of Build Operate and Transfer (BOT). The total extent of the road had been 10.850 k.ms. out of which 9.6 k.ms. was new construction and 1.25 k.ms. was improvement, i.e. widening and strengthening of the existing portion of Bharatpur-Deeg Road. B.
The Supreme Court has recalled its order given on 15 November last year in which it had directed MoD to set up a Commission to look into the grievances of serving and former soldiers of the Armed Forces. In the same order, the Apex Court had made a mention of Smt Pushpa Vanti’s case, a widow whose husband was an Army Major. The petitioner Smt Pushpa Vanti had claimed that she was getting only a meager amount of Rs. 80/- per month as pension since the death of her husband in 1967 and her pension had not been revised since then.
Commissioner of Central Excise vs M/S. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills -Supreme Court- It is observed by the SC that We, may however, hasten to add that it is high time when the Central Board of Direct and Indirect Taxes comes out with a uniform policy, laying down strict parameters for the guidance of the field staff for deciding whether or not an appeal in a particular case is to be filed. We are constrained to observe that the existing guidelines are followed more in breach, resulting in avoidable allegations of malafides etc on the part of the officers concerned.
ITO v Mangat Ram Norata Ram Narwana and Anr. (Supreme Court of India) – There is no statutory requirement that signature on the return has to be made in presence of the Income-tax authority. Nothing has been brought in evidence by the accused Hem Raj that signature did not belong to him on the return and the penalty was paid mistakenly. We are of the opinion that the appellate court misdirected itself in not considering the evidence in right perspective and acquitting the accused, so also the High Court which failed to correct the apparent error. This render their judgments unsustainable. Any other view may induce the appellant to compel the assessee to file return in the presence of the authority so that the signature is proved by direct evidence by such authority in trial. This will lead to a difficult situation not contemplated under the Act.
