These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
Krishnagopal B. Nangpal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Sale proceeds of one residential house, used for purchase of multiple residential houses qualifies for exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act prior to its amendment by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 (i) The amendment brought in by Finance (No.2) Act 2014 to section 54 makes the position clear that after the amendment, the… Read More ...
IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)
SUPREME COURT: Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. S. 7: Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process-Limitation-Acknowledgement of debt-Balance sheet entries-Validity of acknowledgment under S. 18 of the Limitation Act even where name of creditor is not specifically mentioned-Liberal interpretation-Prior financial statements and cash flow disclosures may be relied on- Substantive jural relationship and continuing liability inferred- COVID-19 extension-Applicability… Read More ...
State of Haryana v. Satender Kumar Antil & Anr. (SUPREME COURT)
SUPREME COURT: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (BNSS) S. 35 : When police may arrest without warrant-Notice by Investigating Agency-Inquiry-Electronic communication-Liberty of individual involved-Cannot be served via WhatsApp or electronic communication-Standing order must follow CrPC/BNSS modes only -Application to modify earlier order rejected-State must ensure personal service-Application dismissed. [S. 2(i), 2(k), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6),39, 63, 64(2),… Read More ...
Arun Fatehpuria & Anr. v. Tarachand Tholia (HUF) (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan High Court : Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 S. 9 : Eviction of tenants-Partnership firm-Tenancy created in individual capacity-Non-joinder of firm or other partners immaterial-Landlord’s bona fide need proved-Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises-Writ not maintainable-Petition dismissed. [S. 2(i),21, Succession Act, 1956, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Order 14 Rule 5, 30 CPC, Ss. 2(i), 21, Art. 226]… Read More ...
Vilas Prabhakar Lad v. UIDAI & Ors (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Goods and Service-Tax Act, 2017 S. 132 : Punishment for certain offences-Fraud-Fraudulent misuse of Aadhaar and Permanent Account No (PAN)-Identity theft- Strictures-Opened a bank account and obtained GST registration-Opened a bank account- Inaction by statutory authorities and law enforcement agencies-Directions for cancellation and redressal-Compensation denied-Liberty to file criminal complaint- Citizens of the Country who toils… Read More ...
Mayur L. Desai v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA, Act) S. 43 : Real Estate Appellate Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal-Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority-Right to legal representation-A Hybrid system of hearing-Execution of orders-Delay in enforcement-Virtual-only hearings-Hybrid hearing not offered-Absence of mechanism for urgent listing and execution-Access to justice is an important of any courts / Tribunals exists,… Read More ...
HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWEST ASIA LTD VERSUS ADIT (SUPREME COURT)
Supreme Court: Permanent Establishment: One of the sine qua non for a fixed place PE is that the place through which the business is carried on must be 'at the disposal' of the enterprise. The degree of control and supervision exercised, and the presence of ownership, management, or operational authority have to be seen. On facts, the… Read More ...
Dadha Pharma LLP Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court: S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Central Circle-Notice issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO ) rather than the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO)- Notice and consequential order under section 148A(d) is quashed and set aside - Liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court later reverses the… Read More ...
Saravana Prasad Versus Endemol India Private Limited (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Companies Act, 2013. S. 2(62) : One person company–The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an One Person Company (OPC) under Indian corporate law-The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an OPC under Indian corporate law- Set aside the direction of the Arbitration Tribunal against Mr. Savan Prasad. [S. 3(1), Arbitration… Read More ...
Subhash Chander Oberoi v. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai Tribunal : S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed Dividend - Advance received from closely held company by its shareholder - Holding more than 10% -Commercial transaction - Not assessable as deemed dividend. Assessee was holding 35% shares in the company, which had two subsidiary companies. A foreign entity wanted to purchase stake in the company but was not interested… Read More ...