Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ---- ❯
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Favour Of
---- In Favour Of ---- ❯
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- Referred In ---- ❯
  • ---- Referred In ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY ?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date ?
Date of order
To Date

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
---- All Statutes---- ❯
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Section ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
---- All Sections ---- ❯
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

TMI Citation
Year ❯
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume ❯
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
TMI Citation
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Case Laws
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
AI Text Quick Glance by AI Headnote
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Digital KYC must include reasonable accommodation and accessible alternatives for persons with disabilities.
Accessibility and reasonable accommodation are integral to equality, dignity and non-discrimination, so digital KYC, e-KYC and V-CIP systems used for essential services must provide workable alternatives for persons with blindness, low vision and facial disfigurement. Where verification depends on inaccessible visual or facial tasks, regulated entities must adopt inclusive modes such as assistive methods, alternative signatures or thumb impressions, and accessibility audits. Stronger regulatory directions and modified guidelines were required to align onboarding and customer due diligence with disability rights obligations, and to prevent exclusion from financial, telecom and related services.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Authority to nominate three senior officers to inspect 33 units May 1; petitioner must produce documents and clarify tripartite deals
SC directed the state industrial development authority to nominate three senior officers to inspect specified units on 1 May 2025 at 11:00 a.m.; a petitioner representative must attend with occupancy/completion certificates, agreements and documents evidencing delivery of possession for 33 units (excluding eight refunded units). The officers shall verify documents and file a report/affidavit with the Court and produce necessary records. The authority must state whether and how tripartite agreements (authority, purchaser, petitioner) can be executed and indicate any amounts payable by the petitioner in respect of the 33 units. The petitioner must respond to respondent No. 178's suggestion.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Supervisory jurisdiction cannot replace Order VII Rule 11 procedure for rejecting a plaint and bypass the statutory appeal.
Article 227 supervisory power cannot be used to assume original jurisdiction or bypass the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 scheme for rejection of plaint. Rejection of a plaint is specifically governed by Order VII Rule 11 and operates as a deemed decree, with a consequential appeal under Section 96. Where the High Court directly rejects a plaint in supervisory proceedings, it displaces the trial court's function and removes the statutory appellate remedy. On that basis, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to reject the plaint under Article 227, and the impugned order was unsustainable.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Consumer Protection Act pecuniary jurisdiction provisions upheld as constitutional under Sections 34, 47, 58
The SC dismissed constitutional challenges to Sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which determine pecuniary jurisdictions of district, state and national commissions based on value of goods/services paid as consideration rather than compensation claimed. The court held these provisions are constitutional, not violative of Article 14, and not manifestly arbitrary. Parliament has legislative competence to prescribe jurisdictional limits. The court directed the Central Consumer Protection Council and Authority to effectively discharge their statutory duties for efficient consumer redressal.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Limitation as a mixed question of law and fact bars threshold rejection where plaint pleads later knowledge and fraud.
Article 59 of the Limitation Act governs cancellation suits from the date the plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts entitling relief. Where the plaint specifically pleads a later date of knowledge and alleges fraud or unauthorised execution, the issue of prior knowledge cannot be decided only on the defendant's version. At the Order VII Rule 11(d) stage, the plaint must be read as a whole and accepted on its averments; the written statement or rejection application cannot be used to defeat the suit. In such circumstances, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence, and revisional interference is justified only for jurisdictional error or perversity. The plaint was therefore not rejectable at the threshold.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Regular bail under MCOCA granted where no live nexus or independent material linked the applicant to the alleged syndicate after 2016.
Regular bail under Section 21(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 was considered on broad probabilities and prima facie nexus with the alleged organised crime syndicate. The record did not show any public witness, call detail record, recovery of illegal wealth, or other independent material connecting the applicant with the syndicate after 2016, and his statement was treated as denying continued association with the main accused after that date. The arrest memo also recorded factors suggesting he was not dangerous, not generally armed, and unlikely to abscond or threaten witnesses. On that material, the applicant was held entitled to bail and regular bail was granted on terms.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Quashing of FIR for alleged deceit and conspiracy rejected where complaint disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence.
Allegations in a quashing petition must be taken at face value, and where they disclose a prima facie cognizable offence involving deceit or conspiracy from the inception, the FIR should not be quashed. Delay in lodging the complaint is not, by itself, a ground to halt investigation, particularly where the offence is said to have come to light later and limitation does not defeat the prosecution at the threshold. The pendency of civil proceedings and cross-FIRs also does not bar criminal investigation into alleged cheating and forgery. The quashing order was set aside and the investigation was allowed to continue.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Motor accident compensation for legal representatives includes major earning children, with future prospects and conventional heads added.
Legal representatives of a deceased victim, including major married and earning children, are entitled to seek compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act without being excluded on the ground of dependency alone. The compensation assessment was also revised to reflect just compensation by adding future prospects to the proven income and by including permissible conventional heads such as filial consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, with the reassessed award sustained with interest and joint and several liability in favour of the claimants.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Partner liability in cheque dishonour cases depends on impleading the firm and specific averments of responsibility.
A complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable against a partner alone where the partnership firm, as the principal offender, is not arraigned as an accused. Vicarious liability of partners arises only if the foundational requirement of impleading the firm is satisfied, and bare references to the firm in the cheque or notice do not cure that defect. A later attempt to summon the firm and another partner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot remedy an abated complaint, especially where there are no specific averments that the proposed accused was in charge of, or responsible for, the firm's business.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Bank can sell secured asset to highest bidder under SARFAESI Act despite throwaway pricing claims
SC upheld auction validity under SARFAESI Act, 2002 where secured asset was sold to successful bidder despite claims of throwaway pricing. Court declined to examine debt quantum, accepting best available offer. Appellant required to pay interest on Rs.27 crore returned to unsuccessful bidder and facilitate peaceful possession transfer within one month. Sale certificate issued, Rs.33 crore deposit to be released to appellant. Special leave petition disposed of with consequential directions for asset delivery.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Limited Section 34 review under arbitration law upheld, restoring liquidated damages for delayed contractual performance.
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits interference with an arbitral award only on the narrow statutory grounds and does not allow reappreciation of evidence or substitution of another contractual interpretation. The arbitral tribunal had construed the clauses on liquidated damages, extension of time, and delay, and found that the contractor failed to complete the work within the extended period while the employer had reserved its right to levy damages. That view was held to be a plausible one on the material before it, and the Single Judge exceeded Section 34 jurisdiction by re-evaluating the contractual effect of the extension of time. The Division Bench was therefore correct in restoring the award and the challenge to liquidated damages failed.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Special cheque-dishonour procedure prevails over general pre-cognizance hearing requirements, excluding an accused's hearing before cognizance in Section 138 complaints.
Cheque-dishonour complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are governed by a distinct special procedure, including written complaints, summary trial, expeditious disposal, summons service and affidavit evidence. Section 5 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the operation of special laws unless a contrary provision applies. Accordingly, the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, requiring a pre-cognizance hearing, does not apply to Section 138 proceedings. An accused is therefore not entitled to a hearing before cognizance is taken in a cheque-dishonour complaint.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Magistrate erred by taking cognizance without hearing accused under Section 223 proviso (i) of BNSS
The HC held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without affording the accused an opportunity of being heard, as mandated by Section 223 proviso (i) of BNSS. The summoning order dated 28.08.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the lower court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously. The application was disposed of accordingly.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Substantial tender compliance supports award decisions when eligibility review is reasoned and free from arbitrariness or illegality.
Tender eligibility conditions requiring prior-year income-tax returns and GST no-dues certification serve to verify a bidder's financial capacity and tax compliance. Submission of the available income-tax return, supported by a chartered accountant's explanation and applicable filing due dates, may constitute sufficient compliance where it satisfies the tendering authority's eligibility assessment. A GST jurisdictional officer's certificate showing no outstanding dues may satisfy the no-dues requirement, unlike a portal screenshot without equivalent certification. Judicial review should not displace a tender award where the authority has examined eligibility documents and its decision is neither arbitrary nor illegal.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Administrative fraud classification and FIRs are distinct; breach of natural justice voids only the administrative order, not criminal proceedings.
An administrative fraud classification under the RBI Master Directions and a criminal investigation operate on distinct legal planes: the former is an administrative decision with civil and penal consequences, while an FIR depends on the existence of a cognizable offence. A defect in the administrative fraud process, including breach of audi alteram partem, does not by itself nullify the FIR or ongoing criminal proceedings, and no pre-FIR hearing is required. Setting aside the administrative order for want of natural justice invalidates only that classification and does not bar fresh administrative action taken in accordance with law. The criminal proceedings were therefore restored, with remand for fresh consideration where necessary.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Civil contempt for wilful non-payment of occupation charges upheld; imprisonment and fine imposed subject to purge opportunity.
The SC held that repeated failure to pay use and occupation charges and arrears, despite account details and further opportunities, amounted to deliberate and intentional non-compliance of the court's order. The respondent's continued possession of the property, combined with the attempt to secure interim benefit while not honouring payment directions, led the Court to reject the plea of financial incapacity. On these facts, the conduct was found to constitute civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and punishment of simple imprisonment for three months with fine was imposed, subject to a further opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with the earlier payment order within the stipulated time.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Prima facie satisfaction at cognizance stage is enough; detailed reasons are unnecessary unless the statute requires them.
At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the court must only verify whether the police papers and case diary disclose a prima facie case, and it is not required to record elaborate or speaking reasons unless the statute so requires. An order stating that the case diary and record were perused and that a prima facie case was made out is legally sufficient. The Supreme Court therefore treated the cognizance order as valid and held that the High Court was not justified in setting it aside and remanding the matter merely because detailed reasons were absent.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Reasoned orders are mandatory in refund disputes; a cryptic rejection of excess registration fee was quashed for fresh consideration.
An order rejecting a refund claim for excess registration fee without reasons was unsustainable because a decision affecting civil consequences must disclose the basis of the authority's conclusion. The cryptic rejection showed a failure to apply mind and could not stand in law. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Personal guarantor remains criminally liable under Section 138 despite company liquidation proceedings
SC dismissed appeals in dishonour of cheque case involving liquidated company. Court held that company liquidation does not absolve personal guarantor from criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act. Appellant was convicted before IBC proceedings commenced and NCLAT permitted continuation of criminal proceedings. IBC moratorium does not protect personal guarantors from prosecution. Court granted final opportunity to deposit 25% of cheque amount within eight weeks to avoid custody, after which revisional application will be heard on merits.
AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote
Threshold quashing of FIR is improper where allegations suggest economic fraud, conspiracy and a need for investigation despite commercial dealings.
The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 482 CrPC must be used sparingly and that quashing an FIR at the threshold is improper where the allegations and surrounding material disclose possible cheating, criminal conspiracy, or a fraudulent economic design requiring investigation. A prior commercial relationship does not by itself convert such allegations into a purely civil dispute. Because the material suggested use of shell or dummy companies and possible economic fraud, the High Court gave undue weight to the business backdrop and the quashing order could not stand; the proceedings were restored to continue in accordance with law.

Case Laws

Back

All Case Laws

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

Case Laws

Back

All Case Laws

Topics

Acts Income Tax