Income Tax Commissioners Must Not Routinely Remand Matters Just Because Assessing Officer Could Not Find Additions: Supreme Court

If the Assessing Officer could not find additions to income, then it can be taken that the assessee's stand was correct.

State Rules Can't Be Inconsistent With Central Rules Under CST Act : Supreme Court Rejects Rajasthan's Appeal

The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision striking down Rule 17(20) of the Central Sales Tax (Rajasthan) Rules, 1957 (Rajasthan CST Rules) as ultra vires the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, noting that the State Government cannot exceed its delegated powers by authorizing cancellation of Form C, which the Central Rules do not permit. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the State of Rajasthan's appeal, which challenged the High Court's decision of...

Does S.223 BNSS (Hearing Of Accused Pre-Cognizance) Apply To PMLA Cases If Investigation Began Before July 1, 2024? Supreme Court To Decide

The Court orally observed that S.223 BNSS was a substantive provision and can't be regarded as merely procedural.

Courts & SROs Must Report To Income Tax Authorities If Suits/Deeds Mention Cash Transactions Above ₹2 Lakh: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling aimed at combating black money and tax evasion, the Supreme Court today (April 16) directed courts and registration authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department. The Court ruled that whenever any suit is filed claiming that a consideration of Rs. 2 Lacs or above is paid towards a transaction, then it becomes obligatory upon the Court to intimate the jurisdictional Income Tax Department for verification whether there's a...

Supreme Court Lays Down Twin Test To Resolve Copyright–Design Conflict Under S15(2) Of Copyright Act

The Supreme Court today (April 15) resolved an ambiguity under the intellectual property (IP) law, by resolving the overlap between 'design' and 'copyright' protection under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act specifically deals with designs capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 2000, and the limit of copyright protection in such cases. The copyright protection to such design ceases if the design remains unregistered and is industrially...

'Order Taking Cognizance Of PMLA Complaint Quashed' : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ex-IAS Officer In Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam

The Supreme Court today (April 15) granted bail to former IAS officer Anil Tuteja in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam, noting that the order of trial court taking cognizance of the money laundering case has been set aside.A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the principles laid down in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director would apply to the present case, as Tuteja has been under incarceration for about a year and no...

Dealers Cannot Claim Input Tax Credit For Purchases Linked To Exempt Sales Under UPVAT Act : Supreme Court

Emphasizing that tax statutes must be strictly construed with statutory language taking precedence over policy intent, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (“VAT Act”), held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on the purchase of goods where the subsequent sale of those goods is exempt from tax.“Section 13(7) outlines the circumstances under which such a benefit cannot be allowed. Section 13(7) also sets out that no...

Supreme Court Holds Chandigarh Authorities Liable For Delay In Film City Project, Directs Refund Of 47.75 Crores To Successful Bidder

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court largely upheld an arbitral award passed in favor of a company engaged by the Chandigarh Administration to establish a Multimedia-cum-Film City in the Union Territory, holding the authorities liable to refund a forfeited bid amount of Rs.47.75 crores.A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict, being of the view that the Punjab and Haryana High Court wrongly set aside the arbitral award.It opined that though time was of...

Homebuyers File Review Petition Against Supreme Court Judgment Holding Greater Noida Industrial Authority A 'Secured Creditor' Under IBC

A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking review of its judgment dated February 12, 2024 which classified Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority as a 'secured creditor' for the purposes of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).Filed by a homebuyers' association, the plea states that the impugned judgment has led the National Company Law Tribunal to send back many resolution plans to the Committee of Creditors for...

IBC | Difference Between 'Avoidance Transactions' & 'Fraudulent Or Wrongful Trading' : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd v. 63 Moons Technology explained the key difference between how the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 deals with avoidance transactions and transactions relating to fraudulent or wrongful trading. Notably, under the IBC 2016, 'avoidance transactions' are specific transactions conducted by a corporate debtor prior to insolvency proceedings that are deemed detrimental to the interests of creditors....

S.61 IBC | When Judgment Is Pronounced In Open Court, Limitation Period Runs From That Day : Supreme Court

The Court also held that the benefit under S.12 of Limitation Act cannot be claimed when the party did not apply for certified copy.

S. 34(3) Arbitration Act | Application Filed On Next Working Day After 90 Day Period Is Within Limitation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) for challenging an arbitral award should not be rigidly interpreted as exactly 90 days, rather it should be interpreted as three calendar months. The Court upheld the filing of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on 11.07.2022 to set aside an arbitral award passed on 09.04.2022, despite it being beyond the 90-day period. It...