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 expression for the purpose of the business in s. 10(2)(xv) is wider than the expression for the purpose of earning profits. The former covers, not only the running of the business or its administration but also measures for the preservation of the business and protection of its assets and property.
Hirday Narain Vs. ITO (Supreme Court) Exercise of power to rectify an error apparent from the record is conferred upon the Income-tax Officer in aid of enforcement of a right. The Income-tax Officer is an officer concerned with assessment and collection of revenue, and the power to rectify the order of assessment conferred upon him to ensure that injustice to the assessee or to the Revenue may be avoided.
Section 132 does not confer any arbitrary authority upon the Revenue Officers. The Commissioner or the Director of Inspection must have, in consequence of information, reason to believe that the statutory conditions for the exercise of the power to order
Expenditure incurred to resist in a civil proceeding the enforcement of a measure-legislative or executive, which imposes restrictions on the carrying on of a business or to obtain a declaration that the measure is invalid would.
For the two accounting periods the assessee, a resident company, incorporated outside India paid -estate duty payable on the death of its certain share holders not domiciled in India and debited the said amounts to revenue in its accounts in ascertaining the profits and gains of its business for the said years.
In a civil suit the respondent obtained a decree against his employer the appellant company for a sum which included com- pensation for wrongful termination of his service, arrears of salary, interest and costs of the suit, and then applied for execution of the decree.
Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO (Supreme Court) The notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO would be illegal and void – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC).
Held, that the Income-tax Officer was justified in exercising his powers under s. 35 and rectifying the mistake. As a result of, the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act, the subsequently inserted proviso must be read as.
An assessment under section 23(3) of the Act cannot be made only on bare suspcion. An assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the departmental representative and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assesses wanted to produce in support of his case constitutes a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and calls for the powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
