Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Clarifies “Preparatory or Auxiliary” Activities under DTAA: Union of India vs. U.A.E. Exchange Centre (24 April 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Business Connection, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Article 5, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 9(1)(i), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 90, Judges, Permanent Establishment

Supreme Court Clarifies “Preparatory or Auxiliary” Activities under DTAA: Union of India vs. U.A.E. Exchange Centre (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “preparatory or auxiliary” activities under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: Union of India & Anr. vs. U.A.E. Exchange Centre Judgment Date: 24 April 2020 Introduction Date […]

Supreme Court Clarifies “Preparatory or Auxiliary” Activities under DTAA: Union of India vs. U.A.E. Exchange Centre (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies addition of cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: Basir Ahmed Sisodiya vs. Income Tax Officer (24 April 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 143, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 145, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 68, Judges

Supreme Court on Cash Credits under Section 68 of Income Tax Act: Basir Ahmed Sisodiya vs. ITO (2020) Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020 Citation: Basir Ahmed Sisodiya v. The Income Tax Officer, Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2009 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Can an assessing officer add ‘cash credits’

Supreme Court clarifies addition of cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: Basir Ahmed Sisodiya vs. Income Tax Officer (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Mutuality Claim for Advertising Subsidiary: Yum! Restaurants vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (24 April 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Conditions for Mutuality, Dinesh Maheshwari, Doctrine of Mutuality, Income Tax Act, 1961, Judges, Mutual Concern, Section 2(24), Income Tax Act, 1961, Tax Exemption

Supreme Court Denies Mutuality Claim for Advertising Subsidiary: Yum! Restaurants vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 288 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Can a company, created as a subsidiary for advertising and marketing, claim tax exemption under the doctrine of mutuality? The

Supreme Court Denies Mutuality Claim for Advertising Subsidiary: Yum! Restaurants vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Stridhan Recovery: xxxx vs. xxxx (2020)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Stridhan Recovery: xxxx vs. xxxx (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal complaint for non-return of Stridhan is sustainable when filed several years after separation and a divorce petition, and when the Stridhan has been tendered back. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Matrimonial Dispute Case Name: xxxx vs. xxxx & Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Stridhan Recovery: xxxx vs. xxxx (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257

/ Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 17, Arbitration Award Execution, Arbitration Law, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXIII Rule 1, Contract Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, Specific Performance, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration award that determines compensation for land under an agreement for sale can be executed as a suit for specific performance when the arbitration was only for price fixation. CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 43B(f) of Income Tax Act in Leave Encashment Deductions: Union of India vs. Exide Industries Limited (2020) INSC 305 (24 April 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dinesh Maheshwari, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 145, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 43B, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 43B(f) of Income Tax Act in Leave Encashment Deductions Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 305 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Hemant Gupta, J., and Dinesh Maheshwari, J. The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the validity of Section 43B(f) of the Income

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Section 43B(f) of Income Tax Act in Leave Encashment Deductions: Union of India vs. Exide Industries Limited (2020) INSC 305 (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Will Dispute: Shivakumar & Ors. vs. Sharanabasappa & Ors. (24 April 2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 23, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XLI Rule 23A, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hemant Gupta, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 68, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 59, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 61, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 63, Judges

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Will Dispute: Shivakumar & Ors. vs. Sharanabasappa & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a Will and the presence of suspicious circumstances. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction – Property Law Case Name: Shivakumar & Ors. vs. Sharanabasappa & Ors. Judgment Date: 24 April 2020 Introduction Date of the

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Will Dispute: Shivakumar & Ors. vs. Sharanabasappa & Ors. (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs Mittal Group to fulfill obligations in land dispute case: Ashish Seth vs. Sumit Mittal (24 April 2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Breach of contract, Contempt of Court Order, Contempt of Courts Act, Contempt Proceedings, Contract Law, Contract Law with Memorandum of Settlement (MOS), Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court directs Mittal Group to fulfill obligations in land dispute case Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020 Citation: Not Available Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M. R. Shah, J. Can a party to a settlement agreement, which has become a court order, selectively comply with terms that benefit them while ignoring their obligations? The

Supreme Court directs Mittal Group to fulfill obligations in land dispute case: Ashish Seth vs. Sumit Mittal (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Ordinary Course of Transit” in Marine Insurance: Bajaj Allianz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (24 April 2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 136, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Insurance Law, Insurance Law with Institute Cargo Clauses (ICC), Judges, Marine Insurance

Supreme Court Clarifies “Ordinary Course of Transit” in Marine Insurance: Bajaj Allianz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 329 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Ajay Rastogi, J Can the unpacking and assembly of a helicopter at an intermediate location be considered part of

Supreme Court Clarifies “Ordinary Course of Transit” in Marine Insurance: Bajaj Allianz vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (24 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Commission to Mutual Fund Distributors Post Winding Up: Franklin Templeton Case (12 August 2022)

/ Judges, Regulation 39, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, Regulation 41, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, Regulation 52, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sanjiv Khanna, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996

Supreme Court Denies Commission to Mutual Fund Distributors Post Winding Up: Franklin Templeton Case (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether mutual fund distributors are entitled to commission after the winding up of a mutual fund scheme. CASE TYPE: Mutual Funds Law, Securities Law Case Name: Franklin Templeton Trustee Services Private Limited and Another vs. Amruta Garg and

Supreme Court Denies Commission to Mutual Fund Distributors Post Winding Up: Franklin Templeton Case (12 August 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the inclusion of neutral substances in determining drug quantities under the NDPS Act: Hira Singh vs. Union of India (22 April 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M.R. Shah, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 2(viia), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 2(xxiiia), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 21

Supreme Court Clarifies Calculation of Drug Quantity in NDPS Act Cases Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 379 Judges: Arun Mishra J., Indira Banerjee J., M.R. Shah J. Can the weight of a neutral substance mixed with a narcotic drug be included when determining the quantity of the drug for the

Supreme Court clarifies the inclusion of neutral substances in determining drug quantities under the NDPS Act: Hira Singh vs. Union of India (22 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the applicability of retrospective tax laws and promissory estoppel in excise duty exemptions: Union of India vs. M/s V.V.F Limited (22 April 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Judges, M. R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Retrospective Application of Excise Duty Notifications Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 295 Judges: Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, JJ. (authored by M.R. Shah, J.) Can the government retroactively change tax benefits promised to industries? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in

Supreme Court settles the applicability of retrospective tax laws and promissory estoppel in excise duty exemptions: Union of India vs. M/s V.V.F Limited (22 April 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top