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 : The J&K&L HC quashed Nazir Ahmad Ronga’s detention under the Public Safety Act, citing vague allegations and lack of evidence, s...
Goods and Services Tax : AP High Court invalidates unsigned GST orders without DIN, citing CBIC guidelines. Learn key legal takeaways and compliance requir...
CA, CS, CMA : Summary of tax and regulatory updates: income tax bonds, GST rulings, SEBI amendments, customs tariffs, and DGFT trade policy chan...
Corporate Law : Kerala HC quashes rape case, stressing case-specific analysis of allegations. Assumption that women won’t file false sexual assa...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC ने DGGI की ₹2.5 करोड़ की वसूली को अवैध ठहराया। जान...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
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 ...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court addresses GST registration cancellation for non-filing. Details on compliance and court-ordered revival conditio...
Corporate Law : Gujarat High Court grants bail to Pragnesh Manharbhai Kantariya in ₹537 crore fake transaction case, allowing conditional releas...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court rules on TDS applicability under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act in the case of Abbey Business Services Ind...
Goods and Services Tax : Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Nandan Steels’ appeal against GST credit denial, ruling that delay beyond the prescribed limit...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court invalidates assessment order in M.Vimalraj Vs Union of India due to lack of proper notice service under GST Act....
Corporate Law : Bombay High Court implements "Rules for Video Conferencing 2022" for all courts in Maharashtra, Goa, and union territories, effect...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
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...
A landmark judgement pronounced in the Delhi High Court on 05th May 2020 in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd Vs. Union of India & Ors in Appeal W.P.(C) 6345/2018, CM APPL. 45505/2019. High Court allowed petitioner to rectify Form GSTR 3B for the period July 2017 to September 2017. Issue Covered: Rule 61(5), Form […]
Delhi High Court held that the failure of the Government to operationalise the statutory returns, GSTR 2, 2A and 3 prescribed under the CGST Act, cannot prejudice the assessee. The GSTR 3B which was merely a summary return as an alternative did not have the statutory features of the returns prescribed under the Act.
Rule 117 of CGST Rules is directory in nature, insofar as it prescribes the time-limit for transitioning of credit and therefore, the same would not result in the forfeiture of the rights, in case the credit is not availed within the period prescribed.
The issue under consideration is whether tribunal was correct in holding rental income received from Forum Mall should be considered as ‘Income from business’ and not ‘Income from house property’, though agreement between landlord and tenant contemplating relationship of landlord and tenant and as such it would partake character of rental income?
In other words, time limit has to be computed from the last date of the last month of the quarter which would be the relevant date for the purposes of examining if the claim is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11-B or otherwise.
Issue under consideration is whether rejection of benefit under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 merely for mistake in Form SVLDRS-1 is justified in law?
Chambal Fertilisers And Chemicals Limited Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court) The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 96(2) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for short, ‘the RGST Act’) and Section 96 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’) to the […]
Since assessee had not disclosed any black money or asset in the income tax proceedings going against him rather he had denied the same, therefore, while respondents may proceed pursuant to the impugned notices dated December 20, 2017 to assessee under Section 10(1) of the Black Money Act calling upon them to produce the details sought for in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 under the Black Money Act however, no coercive measures might be taken against assessee if the occasion so arose.
Addition under section 68 for not proving the source of income of partners who have made the deposit with the firm in their capital account could not be made as partners had shown the agricultural income in their personal returns of the past years which had been accepted by the department as such and the partners were all identifiable and separately assessed to tax thus, the source of investment having been explained and therefore, the addition could not have to be considered in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the firm.
It has become impossible for the petitioner to effect recoveries of debts, owed to it by various institutions, which, in the submission of Mr. Nayar, aggregate to over Rs. 3 crores. In view thereof, the submission of Mr. Nayar is that, as the lockdown has been presently extended till 3rd May, 2020, this matter may be re-notified thereafter and ad interim direction be issued, restraining any coercive action being taken against his client, towards the loans allegedly owed by it, which stand set out in tabular form at page 64 of the writ petition.
