Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court settled the issue of whether “body corporate” is excluded from the definition of “consulting engineer” under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994 prior to the amendment in 2005.
Karnataka High Court: Suraj Govindaraj, J. dismissed the petition as being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that
Supreme Court: In the case where the constitutionality of two Central Government notifications related to levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax
TOP STORY OF THE WEEK Anganwadi Workers/Helpers entitled to payment of gratuity; ‘Time to take serious note of their plight’ In a
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (ITAT): The Coram of Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) examined the issue as
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Dinesh Kumar Sharma, JJ., expressed that just because the scholarship advertisement was published
It is essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings.
“Women are subject to a patriarchal mindset that regards them as primary caregivers and homemakers and thus, they are burdened with
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has held that the declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme
Supreme Court: In the instant appeals, the Market Committees located in Rajasthan raised their grievance over the decision of CESTAT that respective
“No doubt, that a Judicial Officer while discharging his/her duties, is expected to be independent, fearless, impassionate and non-impulsive. But a Judicial
Supreme Court: While dealing with the scope of Section 12 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, bench of MR Shah*
“Merit is not solely of one‘s own making. The rhetoric surrounding merit obscures the way in which family, schooling, fortune and a
Supreme Court: In a major blow to Essar Steel Limited, now Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Limited), the bench of MR Shah*
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of jurisdiction of ITAT, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the
“The common portal is only a facilitator to feed or retrieve such information and need not be the primary source for doing self-assessment.”
Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that receipt
Supreme Court: The 3-judg bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has upheld the validity of Sections 52
Whether the State had the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor is a question of law.
“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”