Corporate Law : The Supreme Court emphasizes strict scrutiny of FIRs under stringent laws like the UP Gangsters Act to prevent misuse in property ...
Custom Duty : The Supreme Court rules DRI officers as proper officers for customs under Section 28, overturning past judgments and reshaping tax...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rules that failure to inform grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1), making the arrest illegal and warranting bail...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court stresses careful scrutiny in dowry harassment cases to prevent legal misuse, ruling in favor of quashing baseles...
Goods and Services Tax : SC clarifies ITC on construction under GST, applying the functionality test. High Court to decide if malls qualify as plants for I...
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 : Government addresses Supreme Court judgment on tax exemptions for clergy and its implications on Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) u...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rejects regularisation of illegal constructions, irrespective of occupancy or investments, and calls for action agai...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court Collegium recommends three advocates—Ajay Digpaul, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, and Shwetasree Majumder—for ...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that State Government while applying amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Finance Act,...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules on penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act in CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills. Find out how assessment o...
Income Tax : Supreme Court dismissed the tax appeal in PCIT vs. Patanjali Foods, upholding the Bombay High Court's decision that reassessment n...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that for a Resolution Plan containing a combination should be examined by Committee of Creditors [CoC] only aft...
Income Tax : Supreme Court dismisses Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation's tax appeal due to significant delay....
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...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied.
In present facts of the case while allowing the appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that (i) subordinate legislation has the same superior force as it supplements a mechanism/ procedure (ii) while interpreting the statutory provisions, the Court is always supposed to keep in mind the object or purpose for which the statute has been enacted
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking definition of the particular product in HSN, applying common parlance test, principal purpose test and end user test held that the product in dispute is Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) falling under heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and not heat pumps.
Tribunal/Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the builder should also pay interest for it’s default to the buyer at the same rate (18% in this case), which is collected by him on default of the buyer as per agreement.
In present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by observing that the income of people of the similar status as of deceased have to be taken into consideration
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeals held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 would not be committed if the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque; and when a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted
Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs CIT (Supreme Court) The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing […]
Explore the impact analysis of the recent Supreme Court verdict in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT-1 on the treatment of delayed Employee PF Contribution payment under the Income Tax Act. Understand the background, adjustments in summary proceedings, Finance Act 2021 amendments, and the way forward for ongoing litigation.
Supreme Court held that the appellant-JSPL is duly complying with the prescription in Explanation to Rule 3 of Distribution License Rules and hence cancellation of licence is unjustified.
