Supreme Court Clarifies “Other Valuable Articles” Under Section 69A of Income Tax Act: M/s. D.N. Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “other valuable articles” under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and determination of ownership in the context of a carrier. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: […]
Supreme Court Clarifies Advance Increments for Lecturers with PhDs: Sree Sankaracharya University vs. Dr. Manu (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a government order clarifying the eligibility for advance increments to lecturers holding Ph.D. degrees can be applied retrospectively. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. vs. Dr. Manu & Anr.
Supreme Court Clarifies Tax on Warranty Replacements in Automobile Sales (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether credit notes issued by manufacturers to dealers for replacing defective auto parts under warranty are subject to sales tax. CASE TYPE: Sales Tax Law Case Name: M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes(SPL) & Anr. [Judgment Date]:
Supreme Court Clarifies Tax on Warranty Replacements: Tata Motors vs. Deputy Commissioner (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether credit notes issued by manufacturers to dealers for warranty replacements are subject to sales tax. CASE TYPE: Sales Tax Law Case Name: M/S. TATA MOTORS LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(SPL) & ANR. [Judgment Date]: 15 May
Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership Contract: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. M/S. Sathyanarayana Service Station (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dealership agreement can be terminated by either party by giving a three-month notice, and if such termination requires acceptance by the other party. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Arbitration Law. Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation
Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Dealership Contract: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. M/S. Sathyanarayana Service Station (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a dealership agreement can be terminated by either party by giving a three-month notice, and whether the acceptance of such a notice is required for termination. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Arbitration Case Name: Indian Oil
Supreme Court Clarifies Stamp Duty on Sale of Industrial Assets: Sub Registrar vs. Dankuni Steels Ltd. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether stamp duty is applicable to plant and machinery, along with land and buildings, in the sale of industrial assets. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Stamp Duty, Property Law Case Name: The Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa & Anr.
Supreme Court Clarifies Stamp Duty on Sale of Industrial Assets: Sub Registrar vs. Dankuni Steels Ltd. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of stamp duty on the sale of industrial assets, specifically whether plant and machinery should be included in the valuation of immovable property. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: The Sub Registrar, Amudalavalasa &
Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023 Citation: INSC 368 of 2023 Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., Ajay Rastogi, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J., and C.T. Ravikumar, J. (Majority opinion by K.M. Joseph, J. with a concurring opinion by C.T. Ravikumar, J. and dissenting opinions by Ajay Rastogi, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.) Can
Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of sentence in cases of serious crimes where the trial court imposed a fixed term sentence without remission, which is beyond its jurisdiction. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi Judgment
Supreme Court modifies sentence in kidnapping and murder case: Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi (2023) INSC 412 LEGAL ISSUE: Modification of sentence imposed by trial court in a kidnapping and murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi [Judgment Date]: 21 April 2023 Date of the Judgment: 21
Supreme Court quashes summons against public servant in Uphaar tragedy case for lack of sanction Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2023 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, and Aravind Kumar, JJ. Can a public servant be prosecuted for actions taken in their official capacity without prior government sanction? The Supreme
