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 grants divorce citing husband's disinterest in family life and conjugal relations, emphasizing mental cruelty as...
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...
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 ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court held that the system of imposition of anti-dumping duty does not end with the disclosure statement being publishe...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court ruled on the validity of re-assessment proceedings in PCIT-04 vs Ganesh Ganga Investments Pvt Ltd, focusing on bo...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court directs tax revision for an AI-generated invalid return order lacking reasoning, stressing natural justice and h...
Goods and Services Tax : Mere presence of carbon dioxide or carbonated water cannot be treated to classify the subject items under water or carbonated wate...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court held that passing of three contradictory orders by CESTAT in the same appeal is not justifiable. However, appeal ...
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...
The issue in these writ petitions is whether multi-function devices (MFDs) are covered under the term ‘printers’. This dispute has arisen in view of the document Annexure P-12 by a clarification which was issued by way of Circular No.1 of 2019 dated 2.5.2019 as per which it was ‘clarified’ that multi-function devices which are basically printers with additional features like photocopy, scan, fax etc. are covered within the ambit of ‘printers’.
GST dept to permit the Assessee to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019. The Respondents are at liberty to verify genuineness of claim of Petitioners but nobody shall be denied to carry forward legitimate claim of CENVAT/ITC on the ground of non-filing of TRAN-I by 27.12.2017.
On analysing section 164(2) it was concluded that the same operates prospectively and a director would not demit office in terms of Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 on account of a disqualification incurred under Section 164(2) for conduct prior to the amendments to the Act introduced from May 7, 2018. Moreover, Central government had no power to cancel or deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) on account of a director suffering a disqualification under Section 164(2).
Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) We notice that during the original assessment as well as the remand proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the share investors which the assessee failed to do. The Assessing Officer thereupon issued the summons to the share purchasers calling upon them to […]
This Court has taken suo motu cognizance of incident of police firing as well as lathicharge by the police upon Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi.
If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order passed by an officer subordinate to him.
Kerala High Court ruling on E-way Bill, goods detention. AMM Aquapure Systems Vs Asstt. STO case details. Read the full judgment.
The Assessing Officer thus concluded that there was no nexus between the higher education expense of Ms. Esha Arya and the business of the assessee and accordingly disallowed the entire sum holding that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
Bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a ‘disputed transaction’. The bank can recover from the customers only when it can unequivocally prove that the customer was responsible for such transaction, independently through the civil court. The RBI guidelines is a clear mandate to exonerate a customer in such ‘disputed transaction’.
The moot question, according to learned counsel for writ petitioner is, the transporter cannot be proceeded against even if the allegations against the owner of the goods i.e., dealer under TNGST Act, are true.
