The issue was whether a housing society could intervene in insolvency proceedings. The Court held that societies are distinct juristic entities and lack standing unless recognised as creditors or authorised representatives. The ruling clarifies strict limits on participation at the pre-admission stage.
Additions were deleted after finding that the Revenue relied on presumptions rather than tangible proof. The decision reinforces that the burden to prove undisclosed income lies on the tax authorities.
Supreme Court held that under Section 138 of the NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a Cheque. Thus, multiple cheques arise from one transaction will give arise to separate prosecution u/s. 138 of NI Act.
The Supreme Court held that a joint committee is mandatory only when removal motions are admitted in both Houses. If admitted in one House alone, the Speaker or Chairman can validly constitute a committee.
The Supreme Court examined whether fees paid to foreign speakers through booking agents attract service tax as event management service. It held that speaker booking does not amount to planning, organizing, or managing an event and is therefore not taxable under that category.
The Supreme Court held that gains arising from the sale of shares of a foreign company deriving substantial value from Indian assets are taxable in India. The ruling confirms that indirect transfer provisions override treaty claims when Indian assets are the real source of value.
Judicial rulings clarify that Section 54 focuses on timely investment of capital gains, not rigid legal ownership milestones. The exemption depends on when and how the investment is made.
The Tribunal ruled that inventory figures from a management Excel sheet, without quantity details or physical verification, cannot form the basis of an addition. Properly recorded GST-compliant sales explained the variance.
Telangana HC held Rule 39 “same month” ISD ITC distribution ultra vires Section 20 (pre-01.04.2025), protecting accumulated credit; timelines apply post-amendment.
The ruling clarified that exemption under section 54F cannot be denied if it was not part of the reasons for reopening. Reassessment was quashed as the sole addition lay outside recorded grounds.
