Latest news with #RMahadevan
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Online RMGs tell SC bet money is not taxable income under Income Tax Act
The bet money placed by users in online real-money games (RMG) is neither accrued nor received by casinos and, therefore, should not be considered as income under the Income Tax Act, RMG intermediaries told the Supreme Court on Tuesday. As per the Income Tax Act, a consideration is defined by law as any sum or value that is either received or recoverable from a user or a client in return for a service that has either been provided or will be provided. Since online RMGs do not accrue or receive the monies deposited by users for themselves, it cannot be considered taxable income, the counsel for the companies told the Court. He further explained that when people play against the casinos, they settle with the winners and losers and then take whatever is left as surplus. "We are not valuing the bet but the right to win. It's a different concept from bet far as the face value of the bet is concerned, it belongs to the winner," he said. The court will continue hearing online RMGs' arguments until Friday. In the last hearing, the companies had argued that the GST provisions before October 2023 were inadequate to impose a 28 per cent tax on online gaming operators in the manner attempted by the authorities. The government's reliance on Rule 31A of the GST Rules (value of supply in case of lottery, betting, gambling, and horse racing), introduced in 2018, was challenged because it lacked statutory authority under the Central GST (CGST) Act, the companies had said. On Tuesday, online RMGs also contended that attempts to tax actionable claims like betting and gambling as 'goods' by amending the Goods Rate Notification were flawed. Until October 1, 2023, there was no entry for actionable claims in the Customs Tariff Schedule, making their classification as goods unsustainable under GST. The petitioners (online gaming companies) explained to the court the distinction between platform fees, on which GST is already paid, and prize pool contributions made by players, which are held in trust and returned to winners. They claimed that prize pool contributions do not constitute consideration and thus cannot be taxed under GST. In the case of online games, they argued that these games are played against each player, with the online gaming operator merely providing platform services, and that the platform operator, as the supplier of platform services, has discharged GST during the relevant period at the specified rate. The division bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan is hearing the case, which deals with the absence of clear taxing provisions to enforce tax collection before the October 2023 overhaul. The case, with an estimated financial impact of Rs 2.5 trillion, is one of the biggest tax battles in India's history. The matter will continue on Wednesday.
News18
a day ago
- Politics
- News18
How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC
The SC bench said, "We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The Supreme Court recently expressed anguish by asking as to how many times do the High Courts need to be reminded of the constituents of the offence of cheating. The SC said that there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took a strong exception to an Allahabad High Court's order of March 7, which directed petitioner Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R Singh, who sought quashing of a First Information Report (FIR), to go for mediation and simultaneously also ordered him to hand over a demand draft of Rs 25,00,000 for the purpose of mediation to the original complainant. Holding that the plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality, the bench said, 'We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The court noted the High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs 25,00,000 to the respondent No.4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. 'That's not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings," the bench said. 'What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any," the bench added. 'The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the 'State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others" reported in 1992," the bench said. In its order, the court pointed out, it called upon the counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 to make it understand in what manner the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 'We also called upon the counsel to make us understand in what manner his client could be said to have been cheated so as to constitute the offence of cheating. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties," the bench said. The respondent No.4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant – herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant, the bench asked. Having gone through the facts of the matter, the bench pointed out, the entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of 'Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024). In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. The court noted, it appears that this very decision was relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. 'However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs 25,00,000 to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent," the bench said. 'We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise," the bench asked. The court emphasised the High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. 'Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016," the bench said. The court asked as to why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The bench said it also enquired with the counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. 'It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law," the bench underscored. The court said it could have said many things but it refrained from observing anything further. 'If the respondent No.4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings," the court held. The court quashed the impugned FIR and clarified that it shall be open for the respondent No.4 to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the recovery of the alleged amount due and payable to him. The First Information Report was registered on January 09 under Sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of B.N.S., 2023, with P.S. Hariparwat, District Agra. The petitioner submitted that he is a co-founder and production head of M/s Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, which is primarily engaged in production of motion picture. The respondent no.4 (informant) is running the business under the name and style of M/s Polaroid Media, which is engaged in the business of financing, coproduction and co-financing media projects. He claimed the informant has lodged the impugned FIR by dragging a civil dispute inter-se the parties into criminal case. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 21, 2025, 16:36 IST News india How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
New Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
SC upholds Orissa HC's 2019 order on Senior Advocate designation
CUTTACK: The Supreme Court has upheld the Orissa High Court's 2019 decision to designate five advocates as senior advocates, setting aside a May 2021 judicial order by the same court that had invalidated the process. A bench comprising Justices R Mahadevan and JB Pardiwala on Monday ruled that the full court of the Orissa High Court had acted within its legal authority under the Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, particularly sub-rule (9) of Rule 6, when it designated five advocates suo motu on August 17, 2019. The administrative order formalising the designations was issued on August 19, 2019. The May 10, 2021, order, passed on a petition filed by a lawyer, had questioned the legality of the process adopted by the full court, stating that it lacked proper legal sanction. The high court, on its judicial side, had struck down the designations, citing procedural lapses.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC upholds 2019 HC decision to redesignate 5 lawyers as senior advocates
Cuttack: upheld the Orissa high court's 2019 decision to designate five lawyers as senior advocates, setting aside a 2021 judicial order that had quashed the appointments. A bench of Justices R Mahadevan and J B Pardiwala on Monday ruled that the full bench of the high court had acted within its powers under the Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, when it conferred the designation on the advocates on Aug 17, 2019. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The designations were notified via an administrative order on Aug 19 the same year. But on May 10, 2021, the high court, while hearing a petition filed by an advocate, ruled that the process followed in 2019 was legally flawed and beyond the court's authority. That order invalidated the appointments. However, the top court disagreed with the view. "The order passed by the high court on its judicial side on May 10, 2021 is set aside. The designation of five lawyers as senior advocates notified on Aug 19, 2019 is held to be valid," the SC said in its July 14 judgment. The ruling clarified that the high court's full bench is empowered to designate advocates suo motu, without requiring any application or proposal, if it believes the individual deserves recognition. In its remarks, the Supreme Court underlined the importance of merit in the conferment of the senior advocate title. "Before parting, we wish to observe that the designation of a senior advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy. It is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any advocate claim it merely on the basis of seniority, experience, or popularity. " The SC bench added, "Courts are not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour. At the same time, the process for designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair, and free from personal preferences or informal influences."
India Today
6 days ago
- India Today
Prisoners not getting costly food doesn't violate fundamental rights: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said prisoners, including disabled ones, not being provided "preferred or costly food items" in jails was not a violation of fundamental rights.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to all prisoners. However, it did not confer a right to demand personalised or luxurious food non-supply of preferred or costly food items cannot ipso facto be treated as a violation of fundamental State's obligation is to ensure that every inmate, including those with disabilities, receives adequate, nutritious, and medically appropriate food, subject to medical certification," the bench said. The top court called prisons correctional institutions and not extensions of civil society's non-supply of non-essential or indulgent items does not amount to a constitutional or human rights violation unless it results in demonstrable harm to health or dignity, it added."Prisons are often regarded as the 'tail-end' of the criminal justice system – historically designed for rigid discipline, harsh conditions, and minimal liberties. While modern pioneological principles advocate rehabilitation over retribution, the current prison infrastructure and operational systems in India remain grossly inadequate – especially when it comes to meeting the needs of prisoners with disabilities," the verdict apex court's observations came on an appeal filed by advocate L Muruganantham, suffering from Becker muscular dystrophy, against an order of the Madras High Court which ordered him Rupees 5 lakh imprisonment was the result of a land dispute his family was embroiled in with another claimed to have not received medical and adequate protein-rich food, such as eggs, chicken and nuts, on a daily basis during apex court said in the present case, though the deficiencies in prison facilities may not be directly attributable to the respondent authorities, they highlight the urgent need for prison reforms, particularly the implementation of disability-sensitive infrastructure and court was conscious of the systemic neglect in prison infrastructure, especially in relation to the needs of prisoners with disabilities."Persons with disabilities must be provided healthcare equivalent to that available in the general community. This includes access to physiotherapy, speech therapy, psychiatric care, and assistive devices, such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or crutches. Prison authorities are under a duty to coordinate with public healthcare systems to ensure uninterrupted care. Logistical or financial limitations cannot be cited to justify a withdrawal of this obligation," it top court found most state prison manuals to be "outdated" besides being "uninformed" by developments in disability law and rights-based frequently conflate sensory or physical disabilities with mental illness or cognitive decline, thereby eroding the distinct legal right to reasonable accommodation. This conflation promotes harmful stereotypes and obstructs disabled inmates from claiming their lawful entitlements," it apex court said the state had a constitutional and moral obligation to uphold the rights of prisoners with disabilities and this includes not only ensuring non-discriminatory treatment but also enabling their effective rehabilitation and reintegration into society.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
