Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

Works Contract Service: Stay: The work executed is in respect of the irrigation services and is not for any commerce or industry. The activities which are concerned with welfare of the citizens of this country has been excluded from the liability of

In this case the Hon' Court held that the mere fact that the blank cheque was subsequently filled by the drawee shall not affect the validity and shall not amount to material alteration. Statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C is not an evidence since it is

S. 195 (1) TDS obligation does not arise if the payment is not chargeable to tax. Samsung Electronics not followed

Excise - Indirect Tax - Central Excise Act, 1944, ss. 2 (d) and 11A - Central Excise Rules, 1944, r. 173Q(1) - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, heading 5905.10 - Excisable good - Unvulcanised sandwiched fabric/ Double textured rubberized fabrics

Judgment on Ambani gas dispute

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 36(1)(vii) — deduction under — the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.7,10,47,161/- which the assessee-Bank had reduced from Loans and Advances or Debtors on the ground that the impugned bad debt had not been writ

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(