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...
S. 94(7) was inserted prospectively w.e.f. 1.4.2002 to disallow dividend stripping losses. If the argument of the Revenue that even transactions prior to s. 94(7) can be disallowed is accepted, it will render s. 94(7) redundant and also lead to anomalous results.
The notification dt . 10th of September, 2004 was issued and made effective from the date of its issuance. The same did not include the concept of “computer training institute” within its ambit and under the aforesaid notification, exemption was only granted to vocational and recreational training institute. A computer training institute which is defined and was included in the notification dt . 20th June, 2003 was specifically excluded from the purview of the notification dt. 10th Sept ., 2004. The Central Government while doing so was fully conscious of the implication thereof and also of the fact as to what constitutes a computer training institute as defined in the notification dt. 20th June, 2003.
This Article summarizes the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.(Assessee) [2010-VIL12-SC-CB] on the issue of eligibility of a local manufacturer/dealer to claim exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) if the sale is a penultimate sale made to the exporter in connection to the export of goods. The SC held that if there is an inextricable link between the last sale and the export of goods, the same would be exempt under section 5 (3) of the CST Act.
In a significant case relating to Customs Valuation, a recent judgement dated 26.07.2010 of the Honorable Supreme Court has confirmed the duty demand against a leading importer of Whiskeys, M/s Pernod Ricard India Private Limited (earlier known as Seagram India Private Limited). The case pertains to imports between 1994 and 2001 involving duty evasion of about Rs 40 Crores. M/s Seagram would thus have to deposit this entire amount now. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition finalization of provisional assessments on imports of the goods by M/s Seagram from 2001 is likely to result in significant revenue to the government.
Once section 249(4)(a) is treated as a mandatory condition for filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals) and once that condition stood satisfied at the time of his filing an appeal to CIT (Appeals), then, there was no necessity for the assessee to once again pay the admitted tax due as a condition precedent to his filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).
Even if assessee has disclosed nil income and on verification of the record, it is found that certain income has been concealed or has wrongly been shown, in that case, penalty can still be levied.
The demand for electricity bill arrears cannot be raised once again against the buyer of an industrial unit which had cleared the dues, the Supreme Court ruled in the appeal case, Haryana State Electricity Board vs Hanuman Rice Mills. Hanuman mills had bought the Durga Rice Mills and had cleared the electricity bills due to the board.
No appeal lies to SC u/s 10 of Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 against interlocutory orders passed by Special Court
Where the assessee-bank has instituted recovery suits in Courts against it’s debtors, if individual accounts are to be closed, then the Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.
I am very happy to read the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 13th August, 2010, in CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.9 OF 2009 in CONTEMPT PETITION (CRL.) NO.15 OF 1997 between Indirect Tax Practitioners Association and R.K.Jain.
