Supreme Court Modifies Conviction in Assault Case: Naresh & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and convicting the appellants for offences under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE […]
Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Dismisses Title Suit: Y.P. Sudhanva Reddy vs. Karnataka Milk Federation (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is maintainable when the land has already been acquired by the government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Acquisition Case Name:
Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition for Non-Compliance with Section 15(2) of the 2013 Act: Shiv Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2018) Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2018 Citation: Shiv Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2018) INSC 341 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre,
Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Loan Waivers: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Case (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a loan waiver constitutes taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law. Case Name: The Commissioner vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Judgment Date: 24 April 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2018
Supreme Court Upholds Second Notice under Section 158BD of IT Act in Income Tax Assessment: Tapan Kumar Dutta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a second notice issued under Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when a prior notice under Section 158BC was already issued to the same assessee.
Supreme Court Denies Deduction Under Section 80-O of Income Tax Act: B.L. Passi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for providing commercial and industrial information to a foreign company. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name:
Supreme Court on Taxability of Interest on Share Application Money: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether interest earned on share application money is taxable income. CASE TYPE: Income Tax. Case Name: The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Ahmedabad vs. M/s. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 24
Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) in Income Tax Act: Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat V. Patel (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the amount received on redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) is taxable as a perquisite or as capital gains under the Income Tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax
Supreme Court Allows Lease Equalization Charges Deduction: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether lease equalization charges can be deducted from lease rental income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a Guidance Note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). CASE TYPE: Income Tax
Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Application of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act in Tax Deduction Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2010, has retrospective application. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata XII vs. M/s Calcutta
Supreme Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant in Apollo Zipper India Ltd. vs. W. Newman And Co. Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant can challenge the derivative title of a landlord after attornment and whether the suit was maintainable under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. CASE TYPE: Civil (Eviction Suit) Case Name: Apollo Zipper
Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeals Under SAFEMA Due to Limitation: Amina Bi Kaskar vs. Union of India (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing appeals as time-barred under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), and whether the High Court was correct in upholding the
