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...
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 : Supreme Court set aside the High Court's PMLA bail order for failure to apply Section 45 twin conditions and remanded the matter f...
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...
Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors – The Explanations appended to Section 272(1)(c) of the IT Act entirely indicates the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing return.
Since the tax due had already been paid which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy of interest Under Section 234A does not arise.
ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court)- Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified,
Mysodet (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) -Where in respect of the asst. year 1990-91, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80-HHC on traded goods on the proportion that the export turnover bore to the total turnover even though there were no profits from the export activity and the High Court held, relying on IPCA Laboratories vs. CIT 266 ITR 521 (SC), that in the absence of export profits deduction u/s 80-HHC was not available,
CIT vs. Gold Coin Health – The recommendations of the Wanchoo Committee and the CBDT Circular make it clear that the amendment to Expl. 4 to s. 271(1)(c) was to make explicit what was otherwise implicit i.e. that penalty can be imposed even in a case where the assessment results in a loss.
Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Where the department sought condonation of delay of several months in filing appeals in several matters and explained the reasons for the delay in a casual and negligent manner and without giving even the basic details,
State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) -Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable.
CIT vs. Enron Oil & Gas (Supreme Court) – Where the Assessee had entered into a production sharing contract with a consortium which was governed by section 42 of the Act and the assessee made contribution at a certain rate to the consortium whereas the expenditure incurred out of the said contribution stood converted on the basis of a different exchaneg rate which exercise resulted into a loss on conversion of foreign currency to the assessee and the AO held the loss to be a notional loss
A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority.
Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal (Supreme Court) – (i) A development agreement is one where the land-holder provides the land. The Builder puts up a building. Thereafter, the land owner and builder share the constructed area. The builder delivers the `owner’s share’ to the land-holder and retains the `builder’s share’. The land-holder sells/transfers undivided share/s in the land corresponding to the Builder’s share of the building to the builder or his nominees. The land-holder will have no say or control in the construction or have any say as to whom and at what cost the builder’s share of apartments are to be dealt with or disposed of. Such an agreement is not a joint venture in the legal sense. It is a contract for services.
