Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that individuals investing for financial returns rather than home ownership cannot invoke Section 7 of the ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court declined immediate intervention but expressly left open the challenge to the validity of Section 16(2) of the CG...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court ruled that whenever money is staked on an uncertain outcome, the activity amounts to betting and gambling for GS...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court ruled that once money is staked on an uncertain outcome, the activity becomes betting and gambling regardless of...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court held that adjudicatory proceedings cannot survive when authorities rely on undisclosed material or deny meaningf...
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...
Income Tax : SC dismissed Revenue’s plea after Gujarat HC held that even proposed additions would not alter MAT liability, defeating escapeme...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court's view that a later judicial pronouncement cannot constitute a ...
Income Tax : The High Court upheld denial of Section 10(38) exemption after concurrent findings established that the share transactions lacked ...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court examined whether personal insolvency proceedings under the IBC could halt cheque dishonour cases under Section 1...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court issued notice in a challenge to West Bengals entry tax regime concerning goods meant for export. Interim protect...
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 said that an Assessee cannot claim deduction under section 80-HHC of the I-T Act for losses suffered on transactions. The apex court ruled that the meaning of profits under the provision of the Act would not include losses. Even if there are losses, they have to be ignored for the beneficiary purpose of such deduction, it added.
the short question for determination is, Whether operating systems (software) which controls the working of the computer and which is preloaded in the laptop (notebook) is classifiable as a separate entity under CTH 85.24 at ‘nil’ rate of duty or as an integral part of the laptop under CTH 84.71 at the appropriate rate of duty.
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Catapharma (India) (P.) Ltd.- Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Deductions – Exporters – Assessment year 1997-98 – Whether excise duty and sales tax form part of total turnover while computing deduction under section 80HHC – Held, no.
Tax can be recovered only when it becomes debt due from assessee and it becomes a debt due when notice of demand is served – tax recovery officer cannot file claim against property attached by court : SC
Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Applicability of Act – Whether co-operative banks established under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, transacting business of banking, do not fall within meaning of ‘banking company’ as defined in section 5(c) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and, therefore, provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, by invoking doctrine of incorporation, are not applicable to recovery of dues by such co-operative banks from their members – Held, yes
1. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter referred to as), are filed against the common order dated December 31, 2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in three batches of appeals relating to orders under Sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 271C relating to the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97.
Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji—hereinafter called the respondent—was a trader in Malabar produce, cloth, pepper and other commodities. For the assessment year 1945-46, the respondent submitted a return disclosing a net business loss of Rs. 7,960. The Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, District Malabar, completed the assessment on March 29, 1946,
Explore the Supreme Court’s verdict in S.A. Builders Ltd vs. CIT (Appeals) Chandigarh & Anr. regarding the allowability of interest on borrowed capital under Section 36(1)(iii). Understand the critical considerations for deductions, including the importance of commercial expediency. Learn how the Court’s insights impact cases involving advances to sister concerns and the nexus between borrowed funds and business purposes. Get a comprehensive understanding of the legal perspectives on interest deduction in business transactions.
In the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & others (2006) 6 SCC 286 Apex Court held that It is now well-settled that when a literal reading of the provision giving retrospective effect does not produce absurdity or anomaly, the same would not be construed to be only prospective. The negation is not a rigid rule and varies with the intention and purport of the legislature
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a material irregularity in the notice issued to the assessee under section 34 and dated 28th February, 1958, and if so, whether such irregularity vitiated the proceedings taken under the said notice ?”
