All High Courts

Aadhaar Shouldn’t Be a Pre-requisite to Get Food Articles from Ration Shops

Taiyab Khan And Ors Vs State Of Raj And Ors (Rajasthan High Court)

The respondents are directed to ensure that all those who hold a Ration Card are issued the Rations as per the entitlement without insisting upon the holder of the Ration Card obtaining an Aadhar Card. ...

Read More

Appeals Filed U/s. 10F of Companies Act 1956 cannot be condoned after 60 days

Santosh Kumar Hegde Vs. Parimala Hospitality (P.) Ltd. & Ors. (Bombay High Court)

In view of Companies Act, 1956 being a special statute and upon considering the language of section 10-F, in my view it is clear that the Company Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of 60 days....

Read More

Delhi HC order on Online Access to Legislations

Union of India Vs Vansh Sharad Gupta (Delhi High Court)

The present matter has brought forth the problems faced by citizens in free access to accurate and comprehensive sets of laws in India. The availability of accurate legal texts, at minimal cost, is fundamental to the rule of law and a basic responsibility of the Government. With the advent of the internet, it is imperative that the Govern...

Read More

Sale of Attached Property after 3 years not barred by Limitation when Settlement Commission order not become Final

Rajiv Yashwant Bhale Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income (Bombay High Court)

In a recent ruling, the division bench of the Bombay High Court held that the assessee cannot claim that the sale of attached property is time-barred under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule, where he has applied to Settlement Commission for extension of time for payment of demand as per Order of Settlement and his application is pending and...

Read More

Donation to uplift living condition of manual scavengers form part of Corpus despite no specific instruction

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Gujarat Rural Industries Marketing Corporation (Gujarat High Court)

The issue is one, namely, whether the assessee was entitled to claim benefit of section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 with respect to Government grant of Rs. 8.97 crores received during the assessment year in question. ...

Read More

Cheque dishonour – Section 138 complaint not maintainable if Bank A/c was locked by statutory authority

Ceasefire Industries Ltd. Vs State & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

The provision contained in section 138 of the N.I. Act makes it clear that it is not every return of a cheque unpaid which leads to prosecution of an offence under the said provision of law. ...

Read More

Notice U/s. 148 given for service to Post Authorities on Last Day-Valid?

Abab Offshore Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)

When postal authorities collected notice from revenue on 31-3-2015 (last date of expiry of six years from end of relevant assessment year) as per arrangement between revenue and postal department, though such notice was served to assessee later, such notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was not barred by limitation....

Read More

WEF 15-12-2016 High court lost jurisdiction to hear Company Law petitions

Prasanta Kumar Mitra & Ors. Vs India Steam Laundry P. Ltd. & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)

Matter related to transitional provisions under section 68 of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988, which bestowed jurisdiction to hear the case only on High Court, however, as in the case in point, the issue was transferred to NCLT under the 2013 Act, the NCLT would have jurisdiction, even though the amended section 68 had not been actual...

Read More

HC allows payment by Dharma Productions to SRK owned Company

CIT Vs M/s. Dharma Productions Pvt.Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

GST Online Certification Course- Register before 1st July to Save Cost It was observed that the assessee company is owned by Mr. Karan Johar and RCEPL is owned by Mr.Shahrukh Khan. Both are known personalities of Indian film industry. The authorities have not disputed the fact of providing services by Mr.Shahrukh Khan in the production [&...

Read More

Official Liquidator can file claim within a period of 4 years from winding up order date

O.A. Antony Vs. Chandini Chits (P.) Ltd. (Kerala High Court)

Official Liquidator (OL) could file claim within a period of four years from the date of winding up order, by taking the benefit of one year period immediately following the date of the winding up order, as provided under section 458A of the Act and the three years period provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act....

Read More
Page 1 of 35312345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,404)
Company Law (3,302)
Custom Duty (6,466)
DGFT (3,375)
Excise Duty (4,011)
Fema / RBI (3,191)
Finance (3,352)
Income Tax (24,694)
SEBI (2,688)
Service Tax (3,273)

Search Posts by Date

June 2017
« May