Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The case involved a dispute over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court post privatization of (AIL) by a private corporate entity. - Erstwhile Public sector undertaking (PSU) - The issue was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over a private entity. The employee-writ petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable against the respondent at the time of filing. Various High Courts had held that a government company becoming a private entity would make it immune from writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not issue a writ to a private entity that had taken over during the pendency of the case. The delay in disposal of the writ petitions was considered a valid ground to continue the case, but the appellants were directed to seek remedy from another forum. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny equitable relief and require the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for their grievances.
The case involved a dispute over the writ jurisdiction of the High Court post privatization of (AIL) by a private corporate entity. - Erstwhile Public sector undertaking (PSU) - The issue was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over a private entity. The employee-writ petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable against the respondent at the time of filing. Various High Courts had held that a government company becoming a private entity would make it immune from writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not issue a writ to a private entity that had taken over during the pendency of the case. The delay in disposal of the writ petitions was considered a valid ground to continue the case, but the appellants were directed to seek remedy from another forum. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court to deny equitable relief and require the appellants to approach the appropriate forum for their grievances.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
