Direct tax code 2010 pdf india

Covid Induced healthcare transformation in India, that highlights the primary areas The study discusses at length the demography, economy, focus sectors, and the ongoing skilling interventions of the six major states in the East The study discusses the demography, economy, focus sectors, and the ongoing skilling The thought leadership highlights how the Indo-U.

The thought leadership highlights how the U. Defence ties between India and US, that are key area of focus and strength from both a commercial and strategic standpoint. A report on Indo-US defence relations, their evolution and the path ahead. To Engage, Enable and Empower women transitioning back to their careers. An extensive tool designed to assist companies in preparing financial statements in accordance with Indian Accounting Standards.

An extensive tool designed to assist companies in preparing financial statements. KPMGjOSH is more than just a hashtag — It is a declaration of what we are capable of, driven by the inner fire to win, to make a difference. KPMG supports a variety of industry conferences. We look forward to seeing you. Firms can secure their market position through disruptive innovation.

Our tech professionals understand ever changing and challenging environment. Driven by changing consumer behavior and new mobile technology, telecom Firms need to find innovative and sustainable revenue opportunities. The industry remains challenged by market volatility and a shifting economic, regulatory, and competitive landscape.

Attitudes to tax are changing. This case highlights a crucial infringement of the fundamental rights of people. The right in question is the caste system which is dependent on the number of seats reserved for students in educational institutions and seats reserved for politicians in electoral constituencies.

The Appellant Mr. Champakam Dorairajan filed for a Writ of Mandamus challenging the inequality in education, politics, and social life. The Supreme Court held that such a system of seat allocation defines a class of people and set them apart from others. The right that maintains equality should not discriminate or segregate a particular section even if it involves religion.

The Supreme Court held that the communal Government Order by the State of Madras was a violation and an infringement of the rights of the people. This decision effectively led to the first amendment of the Indian Constitution particularly Article 29 2. Nanavati was a commander of the Indian Navy and was married with three children. During one of his return, he realized that his wife Sylvia was indifferent and questioned her.

She confessed to having fallen in love with Ahuja who on the other hand does not intend to marry her. Nanavati confronted the deceased after dropping his wife and children at the metro cinema. The confrontation resulted in the firing of three bullets and the subsequent death of Ahuja. Nanavati reported himself for the offence. Thereafter, he was tried for mediated murder under section of the IPC. The jury gave their ruling that it was not premeditated murder but provocation. The Session Jury though such decision for acquittal was perverse and referred the case to the Bombay High Court.

Finally, the case went up to the Supreme Court where it upheld the ruling of murder and sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment. The government finally granted Mr. This case introduced the doctrine of a prospective ruling by the Supreme Court. The case pertains to the takeover of a family land and subsequent division by the Parliament. The Plaintiff filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution stipulating that the State of Punjab overstep the boundaries of their powers and violated their right to profession and the right to hold and acquire property in the constitution under Article 19 f and g of the Constitution , and right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that the constitution is ultimately paramount and cannot be infringed upon by the Parliament. As such, if there are powers which curtail the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, the constitution shall be paramount and such powers shall be declared null and void. The motion was presented to the Parliament in after the defeat of several Congress candidates during elections. The motion was defeated in Rajya Sabha by one vote after being passed in Lok Sabha.

Such action of President V. Giri was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court by Palkhivala. This decision was held with a reliance on Article 18 of the Constitution. Thus, all pre-existing privileges and rights were restored back including the right to privy purses which was the foundation of the entire dispute. The issues brought before the court pertains to Article of the Constitution with reference to fundamental rights, the validity of the 24th Amendment Act of , section 2 a , section 2 b and section 3 of the 25th Amendment Act , and the 29th Amendment Act of The Supreme Court in its ruling held that the right to the amendment can only be done by two Parliaments and not one.

Thus, the right of amendment was unconstitutional as enshrined under Article of the Constitution. The court also upheld the amendment of the 24th and overturned the other amendments.

It added that the House of Parliament does not have unlimited powers to amend the constitution without recourse if such amendment pertains to the fundamental rights of the people. Other than that, they can amend the constitution but the powers shall be valid if done by both House of Parliament.

In this case, there was an election and subsequently the election of Smt. Indira Gandhi was challenged to be ridiculed with electoral malpractices such as rigging, corrupt practices, and other electoral vices. Such challenge resulted in the cancellation of the election and a ban on Smt.

Indira Gandhi not to vie for any electoral position of the next six years. While the matter was in court, the Parliament passed the 39th Amendment which included Article A. The Act bars the election of the Speaker and Prime Minister from being challenged by anyone. The Supreme Court in its ruling held that the 39th Amendment was unconstitutional as it infringes and violates the Right to Equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Also, the court added four basic features to its ruling which includes the ruling law, its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution , judicial review and democracy.

It also held that laws do not apply retrospectively but prospectively. This case is commonly referred to as the Habeas Corpus Case. The case highlights a controversial ruling of the Supreme Court as it pertains to state emergencies and fundamental rights.

This case is an overflow of the Smt. Indira Gandhi case of which she was accused of electoral malpractices. The opposition declared a National Emergency by invoking Article of the Constitution. Such invocation suppressed the Press and gave the government the right to abuse powers through arrest, detention, and propagation of reasonable apprehension.

Several citizens including the Appellant filed for fundament rights in the court. The court including the Supreme Court held that it cannot entertain a writ of habeas corpus if it is filed during a state of emergency or national emergency.

Thus, all fundamental rights cases under Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution are suspended in emergency and the citizens cannot turn to the judiciary for solace or help. This case challenges the effectiveness of the Passport Act, the Passport Authority and constitutional invocation of the right to life and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Maneka Gandhi has issued a passport under the Passport Act of and told to surrender it for public interest under Section 10 3 of the same Act. She wrote a letter to the Regional Passport Officer asking for the reason for such surrender but got no response. She subsequently filed a Writ Petition. The Supreme Court held that the Government infringed on her fundamental rights especially her right to liberty.

The right to liberty was defined not to be limited but broad as it protects an individual when it refers to a right to travel. Therefore an interpretation of Article 21 also involves an interpretation of Article 19 and Article Here, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament does not have an unlimited power to amend the constitution. Also, they cannot through their limited power grant themselves an unlimited power to amend the constitution.

Thus, the House of the Parliament cannot claim that in amending the constitution, it will also destroy it particularly the fundamental rights as it pertains to the right to equality and liberty. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the 42nd Amendment Act which included sections 4 and 55 enacted by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during a National Emergency was unconstitutional, null and void.

This is one of the popular three Judges cases. Union of India and Re Special Reference 1 The Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India exchange correspondence on the transfer and appointment of judges.

The correspondence was open to public disclosure under the law as it was neither protected nor privileged. The State sought for the privilege of the documents under section of the Indian Evidence Act and Article 74 2 of the Indian Constitution. It claimed that the Court should not inquire into such advice tendered to the President by the Council of Ministers. The Supreme in passing its decision held otherwise.

It added that such advice is not protected and it is also not a privileged document. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Sign in. Log into your account. Forgot your password? Privacy Policy. Password recovery. Recover your password. Pulses PRO. Get help. What is. Thursday, January 13, Landmark judgment on therapy centers passed by the Kerala High Court. Ayodhya Verdict Out- Supreme Court orders construction of a temple on disputed site and Muslims to get 5 Acres of land.

Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here. You have entered an incorrect email address! About Us. Editor Picks. January 6, This website uses cookies to improve your experience.

We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website.

We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. Tax Copy link Link copied to clipboard. View PwC's latest Tax webcasts. Quick links. Global Publications. Paying Taxes In-depth analysis on tax systems in economies The Paying Taxes study provides robust information which enables tax systems around the world to be benchmarked.

Worldwide Tax Summaries Corporate and individual tax information at your fingertips. Contact us. Follow us.