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 : Kerala High Court highlights legal gaps in cyberbullying cases, calls for specific legislation, noting BNS's inadequacy, in a bail...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC quashes GST demand, ruling that ITC cannot be denied due to retrospective supplier deregistration if the purchaser mee...
Goods and Services Tax : The March 2025 edition of the GST Case Law Compendium offers comprehensive insights into pivotal GST-related judgments by the High...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court rules on tax evasion by Buniyad Chemicals, addressing unexplained credits, money laundering, and regulatory acti...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay HC ruled that an SCN cannot be issued without considering the reply to a pre-consultation notice, emphasizing procedural fa...
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 : Andhra Pradesh High Court held that notification no. 9 of 2022, Central Tax (Rate) is effective only from 18.07.2022 and hence ref...
Income Tax : Gauhati High Court held that addition merely on the basis of retracted statement without any other relied upon evidence/ material ...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court held that GSTR-9 returns should also be considered in case the Input Tax Credit (ITC) not reflected in GSTR-3B...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai held that exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act is allowable inspite of certain errors while filing form 1...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court quashes GST assessment order, mandates personal hearing, and allows document submission after 10% tax deposit....
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...
Since firm envisaged payment to a outgoing partner on the basis that the partner would have rendered service during his tenure but could not enjoy the fruits thereof on account of the fact that the work having remained incomplete, the concerned client had not been billed for the work already done, therefore, payment to the partner would amount to diversion of income at source by overriding title. Thus, payment made to the legal heir of deceased partner would be an admissible expenditure for firm.
Pr. CIT Vs Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bogus loss from Client Code Modification (CCM):However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s explanation and discarded the Revenue’s theory that profit of the assessee’s company were passed on to the clients. It was also noticed that the Revenue has not contended that the client code […]
Since during the period the property was legally not occupiable and not occupied because the building in which property was situated was not given Occupancy Certificate (OC), therefore, issue for charging of tax on notional rental basis and the question of interpretation of section 23(1)(a) did not arise at all.
Unitac Energy Solution Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ass. STO (Kerala High Court) Kerala High Court has held that detention claiming the consignee was a return defaulter for the last five months, is not a valid ground to justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017. The High Court quashed the detention notice observing that […]
Hardcastle Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The main contention of the Petitioner is of violation of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner contends that since the hearing was only by three members and the impugned order is by four members, it is in breach of principles of natural justice. The […]
Services provided by the payment gateway is such that the charges collected by it has to be necessarily treated as fees and not as a commission. The payment in fact is made by one principal to another and it is only being facilitated by the payment gateway by providing a service.
Shri Chandraprabhuji Maharaj Jain Vs DCIT (Exemptions) (Madras High Court) The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 02.04.2009, which was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 21.01.2011. Thus, there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee, while filing […]
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) 1. The petitioner has prayed for directions to the Income Tax Authorities for releasing the refund of Rs. 43.25 Crores (rounded off) with applicable interest pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08 to 2013-2014. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on […]
D. K. Shivakumar Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court) While dealing with the bail application, it is not in dispute that three factors have to be seen viz. i) flight risk, ii) tampering evidence iii) influencing witnesses. Regarding the flight risk, neither argued by learned Additional Solicitor General nor placed any material on record, […]
Section 67(2) of the Act empowers the authorised officer to search and seize the goods, documents or books or things – however, s.67(2) does not empower the officer concerned to record statements of family members through force or coercion or to record their conversations in their mobile phones.
