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...
1. While allowing deduction under section 10B, the deduction is to be allowed to eligible undertaking, even the income being in negative. 2. Cutting and polishing of precious and semi precious stones constitutes manufacturing as contemplated in section 10B, 3. No fresh fact or fresh material which formed the reasons to believe for reopening of the assessment except the order passed by the AO, there being no other reason given by the AO for re-opening the assessment, notice issued under section 148 of the Act quashed.
PCIT Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd (Karnataka High Court The existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for maintaining an appeal before the High Court. While the appeal to High Court under Section 260-A of the Act may be a First appeal in the sense from the order of final fact […]
Shrikant Mohta Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) When search operations are conducted under Section 132 of the Act, the obligation of the assessee to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice is issued for such purpose under Section 153A(1) (a) of the Act. If the return is filed by the assessee within the reasonable time […]
In transfer pricing disputes, comparability analysis and use of appropriate filters has been one of the most prevalent issues, especially for captive cost plus remuneration service providers.
The petitioner has ought to quash the seizure order dated 05.01.2018 which has been passed against the petitioner on the allegation that there was some wrong declaration on the date in the E-way Bill. The petitioner states that it had been written down inadvertently. Other than that no other allegation has been made against the petitioner.
In the present case, merely because the society charged some extra charges from a few of its members for display of neon signs, the society cannot be treated as an industry carrying on business of hiring out of neon signs or allowing display of advertisements. In the premises, the impugned award of the Labour Court suffers from a serious error of jurisdiction.
E-Way Bill has been made applicable under the Central GST with effect from 1st February, 2018 and was not in place on the date of seizure though the State of U.P. alone has made a provision for the E-Way Bill earlier but that was not applicable to the State of Jharkhand from where the said loader/tipper had started journey.
When the applications are filed to restore the same, the Courts are expected to look into the matter not only in the technical angle but also it needs blending of humanity looking to the nature of the case for which the restoration is sought. Otherwise the Court would start emitting danger signals.
Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench dated 28th August 2017, raising the following question for our consideration
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal assisted by Sri Varad Nath and Miss. Archi Agarwal learned counsels for the petitioner. Sri V.K.S. Raghuvanshi, appeared for the respondent no.4, Sri C.B. Tripathi for the respondent nos.1 and 5 and Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha holding the brief of Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 6.
