Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
SC held that key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including those on minimum age, curtailed tenure, upper age caps, panel selection process, and equivalence of service conditions with civil servants, are unconstitutional. The Court found that Parliament had impermissibly reenacted, in altered form, provisions previously struck down, without curing the constitutional defects, amounting to a legislative override of binding judicial directions. Such measures were held violative of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and Article 14. SC clarified that while Parliament may enact curative legislation, it cannot disregard or nullify prior judicial pronouncements. The offending provisions were struck down, with protection extended to affected tribunal members whose appointments had been delayed and improperly subjected to the new regime. Petitions were disposed of.
SC held that key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including those on minimum age, curtailed tenure, upper age caps, panel selection process, and equivalence of service conditions with civil servants, are unconstitutional. The Court found that Parliament had impermissibly reenacted, in altered form, provisions previously struck down, without curing the constitutional defects, amounting to a legislative override of binding judicial directions. Such measures were held violative of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and Article 14. SC clarified that while Parliament may enact curative legislation, it cannot disregard or nullify prior judicial pronouncements. The offending provisions were struck down, with protection extended to affected tribunal members whose appointments had been delayed and improperly subjected to the new regime. Petitions were disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
