Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.36 seconds)Section 18A in The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Vodafone International Holdings B.V vs Union Of India & Anr on 20 January, 2012
Otherwise also, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision in the case
of Vodafone case (supra) has not adduced that the "call option" was
illegal or not a valid contract.
Section 65 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Edelweiss Financal Services vs Percept Finserve Pvt Ltd And Anr on 27 March, 2019
In Edelweiss Financial Services vs. Percept Finserve
(Arbitration Petition No. 220 of 2014), wherein it has been held
that Section 18A of the SCRA does not purport to invalidate any
contract.
Sunrise Associates vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 28 April, 2006
That the "Call Option" granted by the appellant created a
contractual right in the hands of GSPL to purchase and receive the
underlined SBP shares from the appellant in future, upon occurrence
of certain specified events. Accordingly, GSPL had an incorporeal
right to purchase the SBP shares in future upon happening of
specified events. Such incorporeal right is defined under section 3 of
Transfer of Property Act 1882 to be an actionable claim". Such
actionable claim has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India to
be "goods" in the case titled as Sunrise Associates vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi reported as 2006 (5) SCC 603.
The imposition of Service tax on such actionable claim is held by
Hon‟ble Apex Court, to be beyond the scope of the act and the
demand of service tax is held to be without jurisdiction.
Godfrey Phillips(I)Ltd.& Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 20 January, 2005
This Tribunal also in the case of Air Liquid
North India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported as 2012 (27) STR
295 (Tri.-Delhi) while relying upon Godfray Philips (supra) case
has held that the similar transaction as the case in question was not
covered under the scope of „Business Support Service‟. The
Departments appeal against the said order of the Tribunal has been
dismissed by Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in a case reported as
2018 (8)TMI 1291.