The public response to the Supreme Court's ruling is mixed, with a significant portion expressing optimism regarding fairer taxation and accountability for multinational corporations. However, there are notable concerns about procedural complexities, enforcement challenges, and potential unfair penalties, leading to a divide in sentiment.

Supreme Court of India

Government of India

Multinational Corporations

You have to ensure adequate and proper reply stating bonafide mistake and no intention of hiding income, there are many case laws where tribunal and high court revoked the penalty.

blahbaba720

In case Previous year was up to 2022-23 in which foreign assets were not reported, and the form was ITR-1 or 4, You may file ITR-U (Updated Return) Under Section 139(8A) and Reply to Notice specifically quoting that there was no intention to conceal any information or evade taxes, as all related income has already been duly taxed and reported.

mascopatna

When did the first vest happen and when did you last report it in ITR? 

RelationshipEntire29

Ok-Cry5332

I will have the new CA file ITR-U. 

Meanwhile i am very scared. This is not my mistake but i am suffering due to a previous CA who made a mistake.

I also know many others in the same boat who used the same CA.

Ok-Star-3781

If you've received a 143 notice for the year in which disclosure was not made, you cannot file an updated return now as it is specifically prohibited in Section 139(8A) Proviso 3 point b. 

In your reply you can submit that there was no specific intention to not disclose - as it was disclosed in a later year. Also if amount of holding not disclosed is &lt; INR 20 lacs, you can mention beneficial provision introduced in Black Money Act via Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 which exempts such cases from penalty. (however whether they will apply it retrospectively is debatable). You can also mention that there was no dividend/capital gain that was not offered to tax (hope that's the case)

If they still impose INR 10 lacs penalty, you will have to go in appeal and expect relief at ITAT level.

AbhinavGulechha

Its also important to note that appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, are generally not finders of facts, but determiners of process. That is, the facts in the case are not in dispute, only the process or outcome is in dispute.

engineered_academic

I will give an example. Berg v. Obama and Berg v McCain were both cases on the "citizen by birth" requirement to be president. Berg was a big Hillary guy who sued to get each of them thrown off the New Hampshire ballot because McCain was born in Panama and Obama allegedly whatever.

SCOTUS ruled that Berg did not have standing to bring the suit. Standing means that the person filing the suit is the right person to do it and requires some particular harm that's not generally applicable. You can't sue if I trip on a sidewalk because you hypothetically could have tripped. I have to sue because I'm the one who was harmed. (An attorney filing for you is a representative filing on your behalf, they are not the actual plaintiff.)

So SCOTUS dismissed both cases, but neither SCOTUS nor the lower courts actually heard any evidence one way or the other about whether the circumstances of their birth met the Constitutional requirements to be president, which would be the merits of the case. The case was dismissed on the procedural ground of standing.

Another example that I can't remember the name of: a girl was allegedly sexually abused at age 13. It was reported to the police when she was 19. Defendant claimed the statute of limitations (2 years) precluded prosecution. The DA claimed the clock on the 2 years shouldn't start until the girl became an adult at 18. Court ruled that the statute of limitations had run out and dismissed the case. The merits would have been presenting evidence of the abuse and a jury deciding whether he was guilty. That didn't happen. Instead the court ruled as a matter of law he couldn't be prosecuted.

kjm16216

In general, upper courts generally do not look at new facts introduced after the first trial by the lower court.

They examine the decision to see if the lower court properly applied the law, and came to a conclusion that was not completely unreasonable. (this can include unfairnesses due to the lower court ignoring evidence for example)

They will generally rarely come to a decision on the merits of the case alone unless they can simply affirm the lower courts verdict.  if they are confident they have all the facts and it's not complicated, they may also rule that the lower courts is invalid, and substitute their own different conclusion.

It is more common that they send it back down to the lower court to look at again, and in most ways this is a completely fresh look, at which new facts can be introduced (as the position is this is in many ways the 'first' trial over again).

sithelephant

In layman's terms, it means somebody did something the wrong way, so we're not even going to get at who was right or wrong. It's done this way because procedural screw ups can (and often do) impact somebody's ability to argue the merits. 

An easy example is whete a trial court dismisses a case before a plaintiff has an opportunity to put on any evidence. If an appeals court later decides that dismissal was erroneous, how can they determine who was actually right? You can't fairly say the Plaintiff was right because there's literally no actual evidence, but you also can't reasonably say the Defendant was right because the Plaintiff never had a chance to present the case. So it all goes back to the lower court to do things the right way.

NOTE: Obviously, I'm leaving out a lot of details in service of providing a layperson's explanation.

gtatc

Sometimes it means that the procedural issue is the only one before the court. See. eg, the current case before the court related to birthright citizenship, in which the issue of birthright citizenship is not before the court. [https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/questions-about-thursdays-oral-argument-in-the-birthright-citizenship-dispute-we-have-some-answers/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/questions-about-thursdays-oral-argument-in-the-birthright-citizenship-dispute-we-have-some-answers/)

And sometimes it means that there is no majority re the substantive issue.

gdanning

For us laymenn the TL;DR from a ruling on procedural grounds is that no controversies that occupy the public's imagination have been settled.

"Your ducks are not in a row. Come back when you've fixed that."

Amzhogol

Process isn't a triviality. It's critically important. A central task of the Supreme Court is making sure that "due process" is followed. Most of the abuses of the executive branch that we're seeing this year are abuses of process. For example, every person that ICE has arrested and sent to El Salvador should have been accorded due process - the deprivation of their rights should have been handled through the right procedures, but was not. If the right procedures had been followed, they likely would *not" have been deprived of their rights.


So when the Supreme Court kicks a case back down to a lower court due to a valid procedural issue, they are protecting the process.

jpers36

To rule on a procedure of a case instead b if the merits means that they (usually) constitutional challenge (merits) will not be decided  because there were reasons not to make a decision. 

Perhaps a person had no standing to make a challenge. It does not matter how good the case is. The person challenging a ruling has no constitutional right for the challenge.

It is simplistic but for example, a guy complains because the police made an unlawful traffic stop of his neighbor. The guy complaining lost no property and was not detained or in any way aggrieved by the police. Although the police may have violated case law, the neighbor complaining has no right to challenge it. He didn’t have his rights violated.

That would be a procedural issue (I believe what people often call a technicality) and not a case decided on the merits.

tvan184

Very frequently it means that access to the courts for everyday people and our ability to sue those with both government and corporate power is being narrowed.

cptjeff

That is usually the case with the Supreme Court.  It has to do with the legitimacy of decisions.  There are two issues- one is that cases are split between interlocutory appeals and merits decisions.  

Interlocutory appeals are appeals that relate to something in the process in the lower courts.  These never reach the merits because the merits of the case are not before the court.  

Merits appeals may still have procedural issues within the case.  The first thing that is considered is whether the technical issues- standing, case or controversy requirement, proper trial procedure, etc. ("technicalities") have been correctly decided before reaching the Court.

If the Court were to skip over the "technicalities" and issue an opinion on the merits of the case, that decision would always be suspect as precedent because every case that followed would attempt to distinguish the decision by saying that that the Court improperly reached the merits and the case should never have been decided because the process was not correct.

The Court has limited time and issues a small number of opinions and it is important that those opinions are able to last and be used as precedent in the lower courts.  If the Court was to skip over the procedure and just issue major social decisions rules without proper cases before them, it would undermine their legitimacy and the legal system would fall into (further, arguably) chaos and uncertainty.

Practical-Estimate39

That's correct. That's the Supreme Courts job. They don't try people. The put laws and procedures on trial. They decide if a law or procedure is correct and permissible. They say a law is legal or not legal.

Hypnowolfproductions

I'd say mostly (C) here. 

It's probably clearest in the immigration cases. When the executive is acting quickly to deport people, there are big legal questions about how (i.e. under what law), when (i.e. at what stage of the process), and where (i.e. which federal district court) to challenge the deportations. A number of the SCOTUS decisions have not addressed the question of whether the deportees received due process, whether the decisions were legitimate, etc. and simply decided on the how, when, and where issues. For example, they rejected a class action lawsuit on behalf of a number of people being sent to El Salvador and said that (1) they had to bring each case individually, and (2) they had to bring the case in the jurisdiction in which the individuals were located, which for nearly all of them will be Texas federal courts that are notoriously conservative.

In other cases, there are questions about who has standing (i.e. the right to take legal action) to try to prevent various actions. For example, if Congress allocated $1 million to a medical program in Africa and the administration is refusing to pay, who has the legal right to claim that the executive branch has to pay the money allocated by Congress? Only Congress? The organization not funded? Another person who would have benefited from the funding?

Electrical_Quiet43

It’s a ruling on the legal process regarding the case not the merits or facts. 

A ruling based on “Standing” would be a common procedural ruling.  Basically you did or didn’t have the right to bring the case.  Procedural rulings are important for the orderly operation of the judicial system but at the same time sort of anticlimactic and a “punt”.   By the time you get to the SCOTUS, you’d really like to see a merits ruling

thermalman2

The US Supreme Court is primarily a court of appeals. They do have original jurisdiction (meaning they hear a case directly, not an appeal) in some circumstances, but the overwhelming majority of their cases are appeals.  

Many appeals are about procedural concerns and not substantive questions of fact or law about the case itself.  Those procedural rules can be incredibly important for any number of reasons, so that shouldn't minimize the issues in your mind just because "they're procedural".  As one example, the Miranda Warning comes from a case called Miranda v. Arizona, where the question before the Supreme Court was "Do you need to *knowingly* waive your rights when talking to the police, and thus should they be required to inform you of them explicitly first?"  The case itself was that Mr. Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman, and he confessed to the crime.  The court's ruling was that they should have told him about his rights to prove that he effectively waived them before confessing.  They didn't rule on the merits of the case at all.  It had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, it was a question of the proper admission of evidence and what procedure is required for it.  They said the evidence was improperly admitted and overturned the verdict on appeal, allowing him to get a new trial.

Now, I'd consider that case pretty important, but you can accurately describe what the court did as "ruling on procedure and not the merits".  FWIW, he was later convicted of the crime because they had a ton of other evidence because...well, he did it.  

But MOST cases before the court are procedural, even when they implicate constitutional questions.  Because most appeals are about conduct in the trial, not the trial itself or the laws at issue during the case.  

The reason people make that distinction (assuming they're doing it in good faith, and not everyone does) is to say that the Court isn't saying the underlying questions in the case are right or wrong or that the case itself has merit or doesn't, and indicating that the scope of the case is more limited.  In Miranda, they weren't saying he was innocent, or making any statement about the state of kidnapping or rape charges.  They just said that his confession shouldn't be admitted.  If they ruled that the kidnapping statute itself was unconstitutional for some reason, that would be considered more of a "merit" holding.

MajorPhaser

Sometimes claims are procedurslly barred.  So for example in a collateral attack, they are typically strictly governed by statute snd if one is filed a certain time after finality it can’t be heard.  (Of course there are exceptions to everything).  Issue preservation and invited error doctrines are similar.

Sometimes the merits of an appeal invoke discussion or analysis of the trial courts application or interpretation of a procedural rule, like confession procedure or a court rule.  So for example, if a state court discovery rule requires witnesses to be disclosed and a witness is disclosed unteimly and excluded (or not excluded) the appellate court would review the courts interpretation and application of that procedure, and whether that error was harmful.

When lay people are saying things are dismissed on “technicalities” it’s usually a sign that they don’t get it or disagree with what their lawyer told them.  If a claim is dismissed because it was filed after the statute of limitations expired the party binging suit is likely to gripe about it being a technicality even though there are good policy reasons for what statutes of limitations exist.  If a conviction is reversed because the jury heard evidence of multiple acts but wasn’t instructed via instruction they have to be unanimous as the act in order to find guilt, that’s a technicality in the jury instructions but it’s a really important one because the underlying error is constitutional and there’s no realistic way to determine if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

FourteenFCali_

In a lot of the recent cases they’re ruling on preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders which attempt to preserve the status who while the actual issues are still being litigated in the district court.

terrymr

Most people aren't answering your actual question so I would say:

Closest to (A) in that when the Supreme Court rules on a procedural matter it's (usually) not also ruling on the substance of the case. It's possible for the Supreme Court to get an appeal on a procedural matter, rule on it, possibly have other procedural matters get appealed up to them and then the decision made by the original court after that gets appealed all the way up to them.

Note however that:

1. The order the Supreme Court rules on stuff is usually not up to the Court. It's called on to decide a particular question and if it ponders questions outside of the scope of the case, that's not binding.

2. The Supreme Court does have basically unlimited power to just not hear cases. Not always, there are a few legal ways and a few more de facto ways to force them to hear a case, but in general if they don't wanna rule on something they just won't. So for instance, they've recently taken on a procedural matter in Trump's birthright citizenship suits, but if they end up feeling that Trump hasn't made any good arguments for overturning the existing precedent (which is pretty likely), they can just not take up the case when it gets to them.

BlackHumor

Contract law is the first law anyone learns. So, this will make it easier. 

You may sue someone under the fact that they breached the contract. However, you may have unknowingly breached it from their perspective. Take the Epic argument with Apple. Epic views Apple as a monopolist, controlling their store and giving developers little input on payment systems. From Apple's perspective, they spend all the money maintaining the store and giving access to customers. 

So, Epic views the App Store as their revenue stream, a simple locale to download their app.

Apple views the App Store as Best Buy views their shelves. Best Buy doesn't have to stock Samsung if Samsung is being a difficult business partner. Best Buy is the showroom, the shelf, the distributor. Samsung can't afford to sell directly to the customer without serious cost to them. 

The Supreme Court would look at the procedure of this case and find: 

1. Epic filed internal grievance with the company, but was rebuffed.
2. Epic went to the public with a call for public opinion, Apple ignored it.
3. Having exhausted internal dialogue and public opinion options, Epic filed a civil lawsuit seeking to remedy what they claim is an egregious abuse of monopolistic power. Apple countersued.
4. A judge made a decision, or finding, in Apple's favor and in Epic's favor. Both Appealed.
5. Epic has not attempted any shady practice of trying to circumvent Apple's ban, and has lost revenue pursuing a court case. This is crucial as it leads to merit. 

The Supreme Court can review the procedure of a case to determine if the case is worth hearing, as any moment in the procedure could easily shut the case and not require the High Court's opinion. If Apple or Epic or the Judge presiding made any mistake or untoward action, the SCOTUS can easily let the Appeals process find that. An Appeals court could find what the Supreme Court can find.

The SCOTUS is for where there is a constitutional question or an interstate conflict. SCOTUS does not want to get bogged down in the lower tier problems of procedure. An Appeals court will find that, unless there is something new that happened that requires the SCOTUS to form an opinion for the lower courts to follow. 

SCOTUS is not going to sit there and hear weeks of arguments and have to write lengthy legal documents about whether or not Apple complied with the Judge's order. The Judge can do that. As can an Appeal's court.

SideEmbarrassed1611

There usually are several legal issues in a case: first is the underlying reason for the suit. Second is the jurisdiction of the parties. Third is whether there is a case or controversy. Federal law requires a case or controversy by Article 3. It can’t be a request for an advisory opinion. Jurisdiction could be faulty because the defendant was not present in the district and there is no basis to make him answer in court. So, the Court could decide that the case is not justiciable for one of these reasons without addressing what caused the suit.

whalebackshoal

In layman’s terms, it’s called chicken shit.

ElSupremoLizardo

CLAT case SC me direct nhi jaayega👺👺, lekin 1 ladke ne joke maar diya to direct SC me case chlega, judges comment pass krenge auntiyo ki tarah, aur pura desh issi chutiyape ko cover krega. Shame on SC.

[deleted]

Why solve real problems, when you can solve problems nobody asked to be solved

bezalil

-doesnt want censorship

-promotes censorship in a country where its already rampant

Also justice kant and tushar mehta are whats wrong with society, NO ONE ASKED U TO WATCH THAT WITH UR FAMILY. That reasoning they gave makes no sense except for them wanting broadcast bill or smn

enzoman7

https://preview.redd.it/doirzm7somme1.png?width=1080&amp;format=png&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=5825781de6ca30a670b7fb6316b4328d8e388e82

Putrid-Appeal2764

This is all just a gimmick if you are unable to anything in the real world make up something and do that and you will be cheered

sniffer28

based_hk

I have a lot of issues with our supreme court.. obviously first being these things 
Secondly the way the select successor I mean I understand that we don't want involvement from government etc but I have issues with that 

3- being how many days they open it ..like half of the time they are celebrating holidays sometimes judge shab is on vacation cause he wants to see cricket match ..I mean wot (source read that in some news paper discussing working hours of supreme court) 

4- why don't they have some sort of level to select cases like just devide them in different categories and make different units may be this will help and cases will not be pending for years ..just share some work load ..the irony that cases like reneet etc are discussed after months and affect carriers and lives of students but these same people are so active on this 


5- personal comments they pass ..like they are not at all professionals..u are there just follow law that's it ..it's not like u care about talk show anyways if it is not going to work and only law matters (going by saying that law is blind) then just speak on that .. saying that these people consider us not from this generation and that person should have shame u are saying this on basis of what sir??? I don't remember constitution telling u to give these statements..like stick to the law now

I have lot of issues but I'll just end my list here for now

BubblyEnergy7841

Wtf do you want this country to become? Yeh koi randikhana hai?

kfckeption

Tushar mehta is sunil pal of Indian judiciary

_weedeater69

Great! Go ahead. Your company won't have to pay taxes in India for Global(excluding India) income, provided it's effective management is not in India. However, you have to pay, if you live in India for more than 182 days in the relevant FY. But it is only on Salary/fees/dividend but not on LOAN.
&gt;
To determine residential status of company, it is "effective management". It is subject to recent Supreme Court ruling Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT.

RevolutionaryFig9437

&gt;I'm exploring the idea of setting up a company in Dubai and operating it from here.

such company will be tax resident in India.. a company which has ownership &amp;/or control &amp;/or management even partly from India.. it will be a resident in India.. its whole income will be taxable in India.. plus other compliance like transfer pricing &amp; FEMA will come along..  
  
think twice before opening anything outside.. only consultants will earn out of it

open it only if there is a tangible cash flow from location..

iamaxelrod

Can put you in touch with someone who has expertise in managing these affairs.

My only thought process is would the cost of compliance be higher than the benefits you are trying to reap? It is roughly Rs. 8 lakhs to maintain a company in Dubai for 3 years- a quote another client of mine had a few years back.

QuestionsAndIdeas

Great Idea ! we can help you in India and Dubai both..Dm me

gladiator_999

If you are a shareholder of the company, you can file a petition against the Indian company for oppression &amp; mismanagement before NCLT.

On whether you can sue American entity, it depends on the terms of the agreements entered between you and the company.

Trump1-1-

you should consult a proper lawyer well versed in corporate law both in india and usa. basically might have to meet 2 lawyers 1 for india and 1 for usa

LongerReign

Dude, you need to go to an actual lawyer and give him all documents pertaining to this, share holder agreement, AOA, any JV agreement... Too many things to consider. Going by the bare minimum facts, you seem to have a decent case of oppression/ mismanagement against the other side, not to mention there may be some breach of contract as well and case for damages/compensation as well. 

Have seen many cases like this. At the end parties come to the table to settle.

I am lawyer.

PaddyO1984

You should consult with the lawyer to determine initially if the Indian courts have personal jurisdiction over the American company. 

Then they could determine whether you have any substantive claims against the company and evaluate the merits of them.

Seems like a complex legal issue that you cannot crowd source to social media. If the stakes are high, it would be worth it to pay whatever fee a lawyer charges to do an initial evaluation.

watermark3133

Lawyer here, to get one thing out of the way, with respect to any work done by you (since this pertains to an Indian subsidiary where you seem to have some ownership), Indian courts as well as the NCLT (Indian) would have jurisdiction. 
For everything else, such as whether you have a case against them or not, one would have to read the MoA and AoA of the subsidiary company and get a detailed brief of your engagement as well as termination from the company on the basis of docs. 

This would be an Indian lawyer's job, not an American one.

keep_it_reeal

Lawyer here.


Since it's a Indian subsidiary, it must have registered address, roc records etc in India. 


Depending upon the nature of your dispute and reliefs you seek, you can definitely sue in India. 


Time to gather everything document, email. 

10010000111100

If they paid you salary during your tenure you can't sue for using your processes and structure. But you have a claim on your share and profit sharing on that share. Talk to a lawyer who deals with corporate law

Action2379

What are you speaking?  I work top US bank . What you do on their system belongs to them no matter how brilliant your invention is . You have already signed papers for it in employment. Nothing belongs to you and they can fire you next day . There are thousands of high performing people building great products for face book , amazon and google everyday from India and yet they get fired or layoff . You think anyone is suing them just because they built some critical feature after lay off?

The maximum you can do is write some negative reviews on glass door , find a better job using your experience and  move on

play3xxx1

The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign entities can be taxed in India if they have significant operational control, impacting international businesses.

Supreme Court Ruling on Taxation of Foreign Entities in India

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want