Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › UOI vs. Vodafone International Holding (Supreme Court) (Review Petition)

UOI vs. Vodafone International Holding (Supreme Court) (Review Petition)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 20, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (vodafone_review_order.pdf)

Review Petition dismissed

Pursuant to the judgement in Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI holding that Vodafone was not liable to pay capital gains on the transfer of shares, the Union of India filed a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the aforesaid judgement. HELD by the Supreme Court dismissing the review petition:

We have carefully gone through the review petition filed by the Union of India on 17th February, 2012. We find no merit in the review petition. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

see Vodafone Judgement: Guide To Law Laid Down By The Supreme Court

Related Posts:

  • NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) (Review Petition) We have gone through the contents in the Review Petition and do not find any substance in the submissions raised therein. Consequently, this Review Petition is dismissed
  • PCIT vs. S. G. Asia Holding (I) Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court) In view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.3/2003 the Tribunal was right in observing that by not making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer had breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT
  • Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) In the premises, we hold that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under subsection (1)…
  • PCIT vs. Chain House International (P) Ltd (Supreme Court) Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial decision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors of a company to decide the premium amount and it is the wisdom of shareholder whether they want to subscribe the shares at such a premium or not. This was a…
  • PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) The AO did not doubt the sales and stock records maintained by the assessee. By submitting confirmation letters, copies of invoices, bank statement, payment order, payment by account payee cheques etc., assessee had proved that sale and purchases had taken place. By highlighting the fact that all the payments against…
  • Safeflex International Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is thus seen that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 had initially inserted sub-section (6) in section 115JB of the Act to provide that the provisions of section 115JB shall not apply to income accrued or arising on or after 1-4-2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered,…

Related Judgements

  1. CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court) 

    In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period; Read more ›
  2. Sudarshan Silks vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The Tribunal deleted penalty on the finding that the assessee had been induced to offer undisclosed income on the assurance that penalty would not be levied. The frame of the question raised by the department in its appeal to the High Court did not challenge the perversity of the…
  3. Janatha Textiles vs. TRO (Supreme Court) 

    It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction, the purchaser’s interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise.Read more ›
  4. Steel Authority vs. STO (Supreme Court) 

    Where the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeal by a non-reasoned order, held that a statutory appeal could not be disposed of in that manner. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. Failure to give reasons…
  5. CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust (Supreme Court) 

    While merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*