Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 2(d) — excisable goods — the Collector of Central Excise noticed that during the manufacture of foot wear the assessee manufactures an excisable product called double textured fabric which emerges as a distinct prod

income tax Act, 1961 — Section 271(1)(c) — penalty proceedings — assessee/Company filed income tax Return and in respect of interest expenditure was claimed by the assessee — penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated by the Assessin

Business Loss - Deduction of NCD - deduction of the losses at Rs.111/- per NCD as a business loss - market value of the shares at the time of issue of NCD – held that – matter remanded to high court - We expect the High Court to answer the question i

These appeals arise from the order dated 30.3.2004 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 2198/2003 filed by the President of Madras Bar Association (MBA for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956(

Bye-laws have not been examined by the Assessing Officer or Bye-laws were not produced before the Assessing Officer - the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act- – matter remanded.

A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is – whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was, on the facts and circumstances of this case, justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directi

The Supreme Court has ruled that a husband or wife is not entitled to divorce if it is proved that one deserted the other due to constant torture or harassment.

The Company Law Board, by its order dated April 16,2009, inter alia, admitted a composite petition filed by the respondents under sections 111A, 235(2), 250(3), 397 and 398 read with sections 402, 403 and 408 of the Companies

Brief Facts: The petitioner company sought the sanction of the court to a scheme of amalgamation by which a 75% subsidiary was to be merged with it. The scheme was approved by the majority of the equity share holders, all of the secured creditors and

Period of limitation should be seen from the date revised order which also should be reised