Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  2. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  3. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  4. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  5. Text Search
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  8. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
Supreme Court
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Case Laws
Showing Results for : Law: All Court: Supreme Court
Reset Filters
Results Found:
More details are visible to the Paid members. i.e:- Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Acknowledgment in Balance Sheet Valid Under Section 18 Restarts Limitation Period for IBC Section 7 Filing
The SC allowed the appeal, holding that the entry in the respondent's Balance Sheet for F.Y. 2019-20 constituted a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This acknowledgment restarted the limitation period for filing the Section 7 application under the IBC, 2016. The Court clarified that the limitation period, considering the acknowledgment dated 12.08.2020 and the exclusion period under the Court's earlier order, commenced on 01.03.2022 and continues till 28.02.2025. Since the application was filed on 15.01.2024, it was within the prescribed limitation period. The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to proceed with the application on merits, treating it as timely filed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Resigned Director Cannot File or Maintain Appeal for Corporate Debtor Under Relevant Corporate Law Provisions
The SC upheld the NCLAT's decision that the resignation of a director terminates their capacity to file or maintain an appeal on behalf of the corporate debtor. Consequently, the appeal filed by the resigned director was dismissed. The court found no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order of the NCLAT and dismissed the appeal.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
SC upholds FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC; no jurisdictional error found, proceedings to continue
The SC upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's order directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, finding no lack of jurisdiction or failure to apply mind. The Court held that the informant must first approach police authorities before filing under Section 156(3), but the Magistrate's satisfaction that a cognizable offence was disclosed was sufficient. The HC rightly refused to quash the FIR and related order since investigations were complete and chargesheets filed. The dispute was not purely civil, given prior FIRs on the same MoU breach. The subsequent FIR was not barred as a successive FIR because the allegations and parties differed from the earlier FIR. The SC declined to interfere with the HC's discretionary refusal to quash, dismissing the petitions and allowing proceedings to continue.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Jurisdiction for Section 138 N.I. Act lies with court where payee's bank branch is located, per Section 142(2)(a)
The SC held that jurisdiction for offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act lies exclusively with the Court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, per Section 142(2)(a). Since the complainant's account was with the Kotak Mahindra Bank branch at Mangalore, filing the complaint there was proper. The Magistrate and HC erred by assuming jurisdiction based on a different branch location. The SC set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, affirming the territorial jurisdiction as per the amended Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Criminal Court Can Allow Complaint Amendments Post-Cognizance If No Prejudice, Under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
The SC held that a criminal court has the power to allow amendment of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. post cognizance if the amendment relates to a curable infirmity and causes no prejudice to the accused. In this case, the amendment corrected a misdescription of the supplied product from "Desi Ghee" to "milk," an inadvertent error carried from the legal notice. Since the amendment occurred after summons issuance but before completion of evidence, and did not alter the complaint's nature or cause prejudice, the Trial Court rightly permitted it. The HC erred in focusing on GST implications and in holding that the amendment changed the complaint's character. The SC set aside the HC order and allowed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court's decision to permit the amendment.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
SC rules UAE tax resident has fixed place PE in India under Article 5(1) of India-UAE DTAA due to coordinated business presence
The SC affirmed that the appellant, a UAE tax resident, has a fixed place PE in India under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE DTAA. Despite no single employee exceeding the nine-month stay threshold, the aggregate continuous and coordinated business presence through frequent visits and operational control established a PE. The appellant's role extended beyond decision-making to substantive operational control, enforcing compliance and deriving profit-linked fees from the hotel's earnings. The Court held that taxability depends on business presence, not global profitability, aligning with the Larger Bench ruling of the Delhi HC. Consequently, income received under the SOSA agreements is attributable to the PE and taxable in India.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Payment under Section 129(5) CGST Act doesn't replace need for final, reasoned order under Section 129(3)
The SC held that payment of tax and penalty under section 129(5) of the CGST Act does not dispense with the requirement for the proper officer to pass a final, reasoned order under section 129(3). Where objections are filed and payment is made under protest, the adjudicating authority must issue a speaking order to conclude proceedings and enable the taxpayer's right of appeal under section 107. The absence of such an order deprives the taxpayer of a statutory remedy and renders any tax or penalty demand without legal authority, violating Article 265. The HC's refusal to direct passing of a final order was set aside. The SC directed the proper officer to pass a reasoned order in Form GST MOV-09, provide an opportunity of hearing, and upload the summary in Form GST DRC-07 within one month. The appeal was allowed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Appeal dismissed for failing to secure regulatory approvals within statutory timeline under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
The SC dismissed the appeal, affirming the NCLAT's decision that the appellant failed to implement the approved resolution plan due to not obtaining necessary regulatory approvals within the statutory timeline. Despite the plan's approval on 03.02.2022, the appellant did not secure the required clearances even after three years, resulting in non-implementation. The court found no grounds to interfere with the NCLAT's ruling.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Arbitration clause using "may" creates optional procedure, not binding agreement under Section 7
The SC dismissed an appeal challenging the HC's refusal to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose from a transportation/handling contract where the appellant claimed Clause 13 constituted an arbitration agreement. The SC held that courts must examine the existence of arbitration agreements prima facie under Section 11(6-A) through plain reading without conducting mini-trials. The Court found Clause 13 merely provided a two-stage dispute resolution procedure with arbitration as an optional method using "may," not creating a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7. Since parties never subsequently agreed to arbitration, and Clause 13 did not establish a valid arbitration agreement, the application was properly rejected. Clause 32 regarding jurisdiction did not affect this conclusion as no arbitration agreement existed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
SC upholds 5% tax on flavoured milk under Item 04030000, dismissing petition challenging classification
The SC upheld the Writ Court's decision classifying flavoured milk under Item 04030000, subject to a 5% tax rate. The petition challenging this classification was dismissed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
MSMED Act conciliation proceedings exempt from Limitation Act but arbitration proceedings remain subject to limitation
The SC held that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006, and time-barred claims can be referred to such conciliation. The Court reasoned that conciliation is non-coercive as parties must voluntarily agree to settlement terms, distinguishing it from recovery processes in precedent cases. A settlement agreement for time-barred claims through conciliation constitutes a valid contract under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. However, the SC ruled that the Limitation Act does apply to arbitration proceedings under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, as Section 18(3) makes all ACA provisions applicable including Section 43, which incorporates limitation provisions. The MSMED Act's non-obstante clause ensures its provisions override conflicting ACA provisions. The appeal was allowed in part.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
SC restores ejectment decree, confirms notice by registered post valid under Section 27 General Clauses Act
The SC set aside the HC's order that had nullified the ejectment decree due to non-delivery of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court held that service by registered post, even if marked "Not Delivered," is presumed valid under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The HC erred in disregarding this presumption. Consequently, the Trial Court's ejectment decree was restored, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises within three months. The appeal was allowed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
SC rules CERC Regulations 2019 don't bar free power supply beyond 13% under valid Implementation Agreement
The SC held that the CERC Regulations, 2019 do not bar the respondent from supplying free power beyond 13% to the State, as the Implementation Agreement's free power supply obligation constitutes valid contractual consideration. The CERC's order only overrides inconsistent provisions in the PPA and PSAs, not the Implementation Agreement. The HC erred in relying on the CERC order to modify the Implementation Agreement via writ jurisdiction, which is impermissible since tariff determination and related disputes fall within the regulator's exclusive domain. The respondent's failure to appeal the CERC order before APTEL renders those findings final. Consequently, the Implementation Agreement remains valid and unaffected by the Regulations, and the HC order was set aside with the appeal allowed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Interest on SEBI Act penalties starts after payment deadline per Section 28A, not from demand notice date
The SC held that interest on penalties under the SEBI Act accrues from the expiry of the payment period specified in the adjudication order, not from the date of subsequent demand notices. Section 28A and Explanation 4 clarify that interest is compensatory, aimed at offsetting the revenue loss due to delayed payment. Where no payment timeline is specified, a 30-day period under the Income Tax Act applies. The adjudication order's payment deadline operates as a notice of demand, making separate demand notices unnecessary. The appeals challenging the interest liability and its retrospective computation were dismissed. The appellants were directed to pay the interest within 15 days, affirming the Tribunal's order and upholding the enforcement framework's integrity. No costs were awarded.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
EPF Act applies to entities with common ownership and management despite separate legal status
The SC dismissed the appeal concerning the applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from September 1995. The court upheld the treatment of appellant and respondent as one unit for EPF purposes based on unity of ownership, management, control, and functional integrality. Following precedent from Associated Cement Companies Ltd., the court considered multiple factors including unity of ownership, management control, finance, geographical location, and functional integrality. The authorities correctly found common ownership, management, supervision, employment, finance, and general purpose between the entities. The appellant's claims for infancy protection under Section 16(1)(d) were rejected due to the clubbing finding. The court also dismissed arguments regarding the show cause notice timing and the necessity of issuing notice to the other respondent, concluding the authorities acted justifiably in seeking dues from September 1995.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Compulsorily retired bank employees entitled to two-thirds pension under regulation 33, prior Board consultation mandatory
The SC allowed the appeal regarding pension reduction under regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The HC erroneously held that compulsorily retired employees are not entitled to pension unless specifically ordered under regulation 33(1). The SC clarified that compulsorily retired employees are entitled to at least two-thirds of full pension or ? 375 per month, whichever is higher. The word "may" in the regulation does not vest discretion to grant less than two-thirds pension but clarifies entitlement conditions. Clauses (1) and (2) of regulation 33 must be read together, requiring mandatory prior consultation with the Board of Directors before reducing pension. Post facto approval cannot substitute prior consultation, which serves as a constitutional safeguard. The Field General Manager's order reducing pension without prior Board consultation was invalid.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Supreme Court rejects tenancy claim over secured asset due to insufficient evidence of pre-existing possession rights
The SC set aside the HC order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent who claimed pre-existing tenancy rights over a secured asset. The SC found the 1st Respondent's evidence of tenancy from 1987 unconvincing, noting absence of rent receipts, tax receipts, or electricity bills proving continued occupation before the SARFAESI demand notice. The only evidence was rent deposits with Rent Controller from January-December 2022, after the demand notice was issued. The SC held that mere reference to tenancy in sale deed without independent possessory evidence cannot establish pre-existing tenancy. The 1st Respondent's failure to respond to published possession notices demonstrated indifferent conduct. The appeal was allowed, directing maintenance of status quo until disposal of the securitization application.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Umbilical cord blood stem cell banking services qualify for healthcare service tax exemption under Section 73
The SC held that umbilical cord blood stem cell banking services constitute healthcare services qualifying for service tax exemption. The court ruled that the department's invocation of extended limitation period under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 was unwarranted, as there was no active tax evasion, fraud, or suppression of facts by the appellant. The show cause notice was time-barred since mere non-payment of service tax without intent to evade does not justify extended limitation. The court found that stem cell banking services are preventive and curative healthcare services encompassing diagnosis, treatment, and care. The February 2014 notification clarifying healthcare services exemption was held to be illustrative and clarificatory, not retrospective. No penalties were imposed as the appellant had maintained transparent communication with the department seeking clarifications. The impugned order was set aside entirely and appeals were allowed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Manufacturers liable for entry tax under Section 3 despite goods sold to State warehouse
The SC held that appellant manufacturers were liable for entry tax under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 1976. The court found two independent transactions existed: one between manufacturers and State warehouse, and another between warehouse and retailers. Despite appellant's contention that the State warehouse was also a dealer, the court ruled that manufacturers occasioned the entry of goods into the local area through their sale to the warehouse, making them liable for entry tax which could be passed on. The appeal was dismissed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Partnership firm continues after partner's death when deed allows under Section 42 Partnership Act
SC held that partnership firm did not automatically dissolve upon death of one partner where deed provided otherwise. Under Section 42 of Partnership Act, automatic dissolution applies only to two-partner firms. Here, three-partner firm's deed explicitly allowed continuation with surviving partners. IOCL misconstrued its guidelines by refusing to recognize reconstituted firm with surviving partners and deceased partner's heir. Dealership agreement permitted continuation with existing or reconstituted firm. Court found partnership validly continued despite partner's death, as deed provisions overrode automatic dissolution rule. SLP dismissed, HC order upheld.

Case Laws

Back

All Case Laws

Showing Results for : Law: All Court: Supreme Court
Reset Filters
Showing
Records
ExpandCollapse

    Case Laws

    Back

    All Case Laws

    Showing Results for : Law: All Court: Supreme CourtReset Filters
    More details are visible to the Paid members. i.e:- Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
    Case ID :

    📋
    Contents
    Note

    Note

    Note

    Bookmark

    print

    Print

    Login to TaxTMI
    Verification Pending

    The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

    Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

    Don't have an account? Register Here

    Topics

    ActsIncome Tax