Access significant and up-to-date high court judgments for legal insights and precedent. Stay informed about the latest legal decisions and their impact on various areas of law.
Corporate Law : Bombay HC criticizes Pune Police for copying FIR from private complaint, highlighting legal implications and citizen harassment is...
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC remands Somnath Commosales Pvt Ltd case to AO for fresh assessment. The final opportunity is granted; non-cooperation ...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court ruled Section 130 of GST Act can't be applied for excess stock found during search; Section 73/74 should be u...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses appeal by revenue, upholds ITAT decision quashing PCIT order under Section 263 on MAT credit and doubtful de...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court affirms ITAT's decision to delete income tax addition under Section 69 due to lack of direct evidence against ...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC rules that GST authorities can survey business premises for verifying transactions when goods are intercepted without...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...
Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
The writ petition is directed against the order passed under Section 73 (9) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 dated 21.1.2015 by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, NOIDA and the consequential order of penalty and interest thereof. The aforesaid order is appellable under Section 107 of the U.P. GST Act.
The parameters to be taken into account in considering the grant of stay of disputed demandare well settled – the existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency and the balance of ‘Financial stringency’ would include within its ambit the question of ‘irreparable injury’ and ‘undue hardship’ as well.
Grundfos Pumpas India Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The appellate authority, after considering the submissions made by the Assessee as well as the detailed note submitted by the Assessee, held that the provision has been made by the Assessee on a scientific basis and it is an ascertained liability. Examining the nature of business […]
SRS Travels/Logistics Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court) Section 129 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 empowers detention and seizure of the vehicle that was used for transportation of goods in question and therefore, the order cannot be faltered. However, having argued the matter for some time resisting the […]
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the representation dated 13.3.2019 (Annexure P-10), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
PCIT Vs N. R. Portfolio (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: The conduct of the assessee was speculative, it was not an uninformed litigant; it calculatedly chose not to question the rejection of its cross objection. Instead, waited more than a year after the decision of this court (which was rendered on 21-12-2012) till the two members […]
Where both searched assessees were brothers and were involved in the common business and assessee used to be in-charge of the accounts, there was no necessity of issuing notice under Section 153C separately to assessee in case they lived separately, but in the same building.
Requirement of the formation of the opinion as to the special audit being in the interest of the Revenue continues to apply before and after the amendment. Nevertheless, the basic essential requirements of exercising the powers have been substantially widened by the legislature by way of such amendment.
No necessity for Department to have launched prosecution hurriedly when the case was pending before lower authorities as the law of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution had been excluded by the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974.
Penalty u/s 271D and 271 E was leviable as there was absolutely no genuinity or bonafideness in the transaction done between the promoter/ director and assessee- company.
