Yashpal Jain Vs Sushila Devi & Others (Supreme Court of India) Introduction: The case of Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi & Others is a reflection of the challenges the legal system faces due to inordinate delays in the resolution of cases. It underscores the urgent need for timely justice delivery and the consequences of prolonged litigation. […]
Explore Almech Enterprises Vs. ACIT case. Learn why a cash shortfall in a survey compared to books doesn’t warrant an addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
Receipts from providing information technology related support services could not be considered as royalty and/fees for technical services as while running the services, assessee had not made available any technical knowledge, experience, skill in terms of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA and as such, receipts in question were not FTS liable to tax in India.
Explore the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment on New Morning Star Travels vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST). Analysis of GST assessment order implications.
Delhi High Court granted the bail to the petitioner (Chartered Accountant) under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2022 based on the plea of the petitioner that he has acted on the basis of information and records provided by his client.
Supreme Court held that vicarious liability couldn’t be attracted under section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely based on the reason that the person was in charge of the company at the time when the offence was committed. Accordingly, criminal complaint quashed.
Delhi High Court held that on account of lack of facts and material particulars, the relief as sought by the petitioner not granted. Concluded that if material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible.
Madras High Court held that clause (xi) to Explanation to Section 153B of the Income Tax Act relating to the exclusion of the period taken for handing over seized material to the assessing officer is effective prospectively from 01.04.2021. Accordingly, prior assessment years are held to be barred by limitation.
Held that the entries in the books of account of amalgamating companies prior to amalgamation cannot be part of the additions made under section 153A in the hands of the assessee (i.e. amalgamated company). Accordingly, additions deleted.
Kerala High Court held that person who failed to avail the opportunity granted to him to make submissions cannot complain about the violation of principles of natural justice. Writ not entertained on account of availability of alternative remedy.
