Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)207CTR(SC)733; [2007]289ITR83(SC); JT2007(3)SC125; 2007(2)SCALE612; (2007)9SCC665
Ashok Bhan, J.1. We propose to dispose of these appeals as has been done by the High Court, by a common order, as the point involved in all these appeals is the same.2. Facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 7115 of 2005.Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I, the respondent herein, filed ITA No. 340 of 2004 in the High Court of Delhi against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Assessee also filed ITA No. of 2004 being aggrieved against a part of the order of the Tribunal. High Court allowed the ITA No. 340 of 2004 filed by the Revenue and held that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') merely on the ground that the total income of the assessee was assessed at a minus figure/loss. Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal remitting the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271(1)(c) relating t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC113IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2017 Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents With Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.975 of 2022 And With Writ Petition (C) No.1132 of 2022 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Background ................................................................................................... 4 i. Corporate Contributions ........................................................................... 5 ii. Curbing black money .............................................................................. 10 iii. Transparency ........................................................................................... 11 iv. Objections of RBI and ECI to the Electoral Bond Scheme .................. 13 v. Electoral Bond Scheme .......................................................................... 18 B. Is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8996 OF2019CENTRAL GST DELHI - III APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2465 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4751-4753 OF2021JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.1. In all these appeals, orders of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 (hereafter CESTAT) are impugned by the service tax authorities (hereafter the revenue), who argue that user development fee levied and collected by the airport operation, maintenance and development entities (i.e., the Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi International 1 Final Order No, ST/A/50064/2019-CUIDBI dated 18/01/2019 [by the Principal Bench, CESTAT, New Delhi].; Final Order No.A/88830- -88832/16/STB dated 28.01.2016 [by the Western Zonal Bench, CESTAT, Mumbai].; and Final Order No.A/30739/2019 dated 16.09.2019 [by the CESTAT Regional Bench at Hyderabad].. 2 Airport Pvt. Ltd., and the Hydera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2022 Union of India & Anr. ....Appellants Versus M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Through Director .... Respondent WITH C.A. No.1390/2022 With C.A. No.1394/2022 With C.A. No.1417/2022 With C.A. No.1419/2022 With C.A. No.1445/2022 With C.A. No.1414/2022 With C.A. No.1402/2022 With C.A. No.1412/2022 With C.A. No.1411/2022 With 1 C.A. No.1413/2022 With C.A. No.1415/2022 With C.A. No.1418/2022 With C.A. No.1420/2022 With C.A. No.1446/2022 With C.A. No.1447/2022 With C.A. No.1409/2022 With C.A. No.1416/2022 With C.A. No.1395/2022 With C.A. No.1407/2022 With C.A. No.1406/2022 With C.A. No.1398/2022 With C.A. No.1401/2022 With C.A. No.1391/2022 With C.A. No.1403/2022 With C.A. No.1393/2022 With C.A. No.1410/2022 With C.A. No.1405/2022 With C.A. No.1397/2022 With C.A. No.1404/2022 With C.A. No.1400/2022 With C.A. No.1396/2022 2 With C.A. No.1408/2022 With C.A. No.1399/2022 And With C.A. No.1392/2022 3 JUD...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Reportable CRIMINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISIDCTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.67 OF2011Securities and Exchange Board of India Appellant(s) Classic Credit Ltd. versus With Respondent(s) Criminal Appeal Nos. 68 to 73 of 2011 Civil Appeal Nos. 102-103 of 2011 Criminal Appeal No.1096 of 2013 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.67 of 2016 Criminal Appeal No.1450 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.3593 of 2011) Civil Appeal No.10729 of 2017 Arising out of SLP(C) No.21394 of 2011 JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.1.2. Leave granted, in all the special leave petitions. Complaints were filed against the private parties herein, for offences punishable under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the SEBI Act). At the time when the complaints were filed under Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act, the concerned accused were to be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate (or, a 1 Judicial Magistrate of the first class). In this bunch of cases, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6718 OF2004M.C.D. & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. MEHRASONS JEWELLERS (P) LTD. ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8341 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.8342 OF2011CIVIL APPEAL NO.________ OF2015(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.32342 OF2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO.632 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.8340 OF2011JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this batch of appeals there appear to be two distinct groups dealing with two separate questions that have been raised by counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Civil Appeal No.6718 of 2004 raises a question as to the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dhunishaw Framroz Daruwala, 100 DLT679(2002), decided on 23.7.2002, whereas the other appeals raise a question as to the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 21.4.2010 in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD HOPE 1. Very substantial judgments have been prepared in this case by Lord Walker, Lord Reed and Lord Sumption, to each of which I pay tribute. I wish in this short introduction to do two things. First, I shall say a bit about the background, to assist the reader in understanding at the outset what the issues are and to provide a guide to the passages in those judgments where they are dealt with. Second, I shall indicate briefly what my opinion is on each of them. I will however have to say a bit more about the one issue on which the court is divided: the DMG remedy/section 320 issue: see para 11, below. As it raises a question of EU law and the division of opinion shows that the answer to it is not acte clair, it is plain that it will need to be the subject of a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under article 267 TFEU. The proceedings 2. As Henderson J explained at the outset of his judgment [2008] EWHC 2893 (Ch), [2009] STC 254, para 1, the Franked Inve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether an assessee (local manufacturer) is eligible to get exemption under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short `CST Act'), if the penultimate sale effected in favour of the exporter is inextricably connected with the export of goods outside the territory of India.2. This Court in Md. Serajuddin & Others v. State of Orissa (1975) 2 SCC 47, held that, under Article 286 of the Constitution, the sale which was not liable to tax under the State Sales Tax was only the actual sale by the exporter, but the benefit of export sale did not extend to the penultimate sale to the Indian exporter for the purpose of export. This led to the insertion of sub- section (3) of Section 5 of the CST Act by the Amending Act 103 of 1976 with effect from 1.4.1976, whereby the last sale or purchase occasioning the export of goods was granted exemption from the State levy.3. The scope of the Amending Act later cam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC798; (2008)214CTR(SC)87; 2007(14)SCALE311; 2008[9]STR3; (2008)12VST1(SC); 2008AIRSCW25; 2008(1)SCC780.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.A limited notice was issued to the effect as to whether the appellant- Kerala State Electricity Board, the service recipient, within the meaning of provisions of Finance Act, 1994, levying service tax, is liable to pay any interest on the amount of tax due to the respondent. 2. The question involved in this appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.7.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the appeal filed by the respondent herein from the judgment and order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Cochin in Final Order No. 477 of 2005, Appeal No. ST/36/2004 was allowed. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant herein entered into an agreement with M/s. SNC Levin Inc. Montreal, Canada (Foreign company) in relation to various projects for obtaining consultancy services from them. The relevant clauses of the said agreement are as under:16.1 - SNC Lava line ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3020; (2005)4CompLJ440(SC); (2005)194CTR(SC)428; 2005(99)ECC377; 2005(182)ELT33(SC); [2005]274ITR194(SC); JT2005(Suppl3)SC389; (2005)4SCC214; 2006[3]STR608; 200
Ruma Pal, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act 2000 and Section 158 of the Finance Act, 2003 by which the decision of this Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. : 1999ECR53(SC) , striking down Rules 2(1)(d), (xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (as amended in 1997) was sought to be overcome.2. The writ petitioners are the customers or clients of goods transport operators and forwarding and clearing agents. There are three main grounds on which they have based their challenge. They contend that the basis of the decision rendered in Laghu Udyog Bharati had not been removed or displaced by the impugned sections and could not therefore overrule, replace or override this Court's decision. The second ground of challenge is that Parliament was legislatively incompetent to enact the law. It is stated that the imposition of the impugned levy encroaches upon the State Gov...
Tag this Judgment!