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...
We are pained to record this most unreasonable attitude on the part of the Advocate for the Revenue of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues, without having obtained any stay from the Apex Court. This results in unnecessary wastage of the scarce judicial time available in the context of the large number of the appeals awaiting consideration.
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,04,369 by considering the same to be service tax? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,600 made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Guwahati Tea Warehousing Association has filed a Petition in Gauhati High Court against imposition of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on loading, packing, warehousing, etc of processed tea. Case was admitted for hearing on 23.05.2018.
Sunrise Academy of Medical Specialities (India) Private Limited Vs ITO (Kerala High Court) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner was one taken for a limited scrutiny on the issue as to whether the funds received in the form of share premium by the petitioner are from disclosed sources […]
Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) The chronology of events leading up to the passing of the orders under section 143(3) of the Act, clearly shows that the assessing officer was ‘satisfied with the claim of the assessee’ while passing the original orders. Rule 8D is triggered only in a case where […]
Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal CIT & Others (Delhi High Court) In the present case we perceive that an equitable resolution is possible on interpretation of the provisions without undermining the object and purpose behind the Amendment Act. Thus while we have rejected the argument that advance tax of Rs. 85,50,000/- can treated as payment of […]
These are eleven appeals by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (hereafter ‘Revenue’) under section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (WTA), against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment years (‘AYs’) 1984-85 to 1992-93 and assessment years 1997-98 to 1998-99.
Heard Sri Gaurav Mahajan learned counsel for the department and Sri Arnab Banerji learned counsel for the assessee. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the department against the order dated 6.1.2006 passed by the tribunal in I.T.A. no.614/Del/2002 for the assessment year 1997-98.
Initiation of reopening proceedings without communicating the reasons for reopening to the assessee was not justified.
Indo Arya Central Transport Limited Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) M/s Indo Arya Central Transport Limited have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1; (b) Restrain the Respondent No. 1 and the officers […]
