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 : SC set aside the PMLA cognizance order as the accused was not heard under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS before cognizan...
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 : 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 Supreme Court has set aside the penalty demanded by the excise authorities from Pepsi Foods Ltd because there was no intentional default on the part of the company. But the court overruled the excise tribunal on the question of inclusion of freight charges between Pepsi factory and Frito-Lay India.
Those who take loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract; any lapse in such matters has to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods
In all these petitions, the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 (`Act’ for short) is challenged. In TC No.150/2006, additionally there is a challenge to section 46 of the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 323B of Constitution of India. It is contended that section 46 of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, is ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution as it enables proliferation of Tribunal system and makes serious
In the present case, the trial court had acquitted the appellant-accused in a case related to the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This finding of acquittal had been made by the Addl. JMFC at Ranebennur, Karnataka in Criminal Case No. 993/2001, by way of a judgment dated 30-5-2005. On appeal by the respondent-complainant, the High Court had reversed the trial court’s decision and recorded a finding of conviction
This Statutory First Appeal under Section 10 of the Special Court (Trial of offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (in short the `Special Court Act’) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2004 passed by the Special Court at Bombay in Suit No.4 of 1998.
The necessary facts, in brief are, that the show cause notice dated 15.2.1999 was issued to the assessee alleging that it had wrongly taken credit to the extent of 5,37,799 under Rule 57A of the Rules, during August 1998.
After the Maruti Suzuki decision of the Supreme Court, the scope of the term “input” to determine eligibility to CENVAT Credit, appeared to have been narrowed down. Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., UP v. CCE, Meerut-1 on the issue of admissibility of CENVAT Credit of duty paid on welding electrodes used in maintenance of machines decided that the ratio in Maruti Suzuki in relation to the interpretation of the definition of ‘input’ required reconsideration and directed that the issue be placed before the larger bench of the Supreme Court.
A chartered accountant who is not a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India but impersonating as one can be charged under the Indian Penal Code or under other laws for offences, the Supreme Court stated while allowing the appeal of the institute. The Madhya Pradesh high court had taken a different view. In this case, ICAI vs Vimal Kumar, the institute filed a complaint before the police alleging forgery and impersonation. The trial court ruled that there was no basis for framing charges under IPC. The high court rejected the appeal of the institute stating that though a case was made out under the Chartered Accountants Act, the complaint was not under that Act, but under IPC. The institute appealed to the Supreme Court which set aside the high court judgment and directed prosecution under IPC.
The appellant is an association of leasing and financial companies. The appellant had filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court challenging the levy of Service Tax imposed on the financial leasing services covered under ‘Banking and other financial services’ as ultra vires the legislative competence of the Parliament. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition. The appellant filed civil appeal in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court directs that since, foundational facts could not be established by way of writ petition, the taxpayer should be relegated to adopt proceedings before various Income-tax authorities. Thus, the Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to continue with the reassessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (Supreme Court in the context of Transfer Pricing Provisions of Section 92 to 92F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), has directed Assessing Officer (AO)/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to expeditiously hear and dispose of pending proceedings and to decide independently on the merits of case, uninfluenced by the observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (High Court). The Apex Court has further ruled if the taxpayer is aggrieved by the order passed by AO/ TPO, it will have to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act.
