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 : Karnataka High Court advocates for Uniform Civil Code to accelerate equality for all women, regardless of religion or caste. ...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court quashes adultery case under Section 497 IPC, stressing women are not property and citing the example of Draupadi ...
Income Tax : Kerala HC rules no separate challenge needed for Sec 263 remand order before appealing revised assessment; restores Malabar Instit...
Corporate Law : Chhattisgarh HC rules pension can't be recovered without legal basis, quashing recovery order against ex-govt employee and orderin...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay HC rules GST on developer rights under a development agreement does not fall under reverse charge as per Entry 5B of Notifi...
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 rules uploading GST notices to the common portal is sufficient but often ineffective service. Court urges tax of...
Goods and Services Tax : Andhra HC allows GST refund for zero-rated services despite service exclusion in registration; clarifies scope of CGST/IGST provis...
Goods and Services Tax : Dealers registered under Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act), 2008 were duty bound to reverse or debit the input tax credit as prescribe...
Excise Duty : Gujarat High Court held that imposed a token cost of Rs. 1,000 on department for disregarding the directions by Central Excise and...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court directs CBI investigation into the allegations of amassment of wealth disproportionate to his known sources of i...
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...
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed respondents to release the goods by furnishing security of immovable property where the petitioner has filed the appeal
CIT (TDS) Vs Jaypee Sports International Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) Word ‘rent’ means any payment by whatever name called under any lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement for the use of any land and came to the conclusion that lease money or annual rent is rent within the meaning of section 194-I […]
The common issue which falls for consideration in these batch of cases is as to whether the respondent, the Income Tax Department, is justified in insisting upon recovery of tax at source from the salary payable to Nuns/Fathers/Priests working in various Teaching Institutions established and administered by the petitioners.
Where the intention of assessee for purchase of the land was for resale and within a short period of time though the sale was only to the companies of which the assessee was a director, it was apparent that assessee was acting as an interface to purchase the lands from the land owners and then converted in non-agricultural use and sold to these companies who were in the business of real estate. Hence, properties sold were not excluded from the meaning of capital asset, as they were not agricultural land as defined by section 2(14).
Pr. CIT Vs DLF Commercial Projects Corporation (Delhi High Court) Neither the provisions of section 194C nor section 194J obliges the person making the payment to deduct anything from contractual payments such as those made for reimbursement of expenses, other than what is defined as “income”. The law thus obliges only amounts which fulfil the […]
When the very arrest of the petitioners is not prohibited prior to the completion of the assessment, any coercive action lesser than arrest, can not also be said to be prohibited.
CIT Vs Saifee Hospital Trust (Bombay High Court) The Assessing Officer held that services of catering rendered by M/s Monginis is technical service and therefore, deduction of tax at source by the respondent has to be under Section 194J of the Act. However, in appeal both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) as well […]
Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) In the present case, the officer proceeds to mechanically call upon the petitioner to remit 20% of the demand without examining the appropriateness of the direction to the facts and circumstances of the petitioners’ case. For this sole reason, Hon’ble High […]
Mr. Mittal points out that the calculation of the interest payable for delayed payment of GST as determined by the Respondent is erroneous. According to him, interest has been calculated even on the amount constituting the input tax credit which is in fact to be adjusted against the tax liability. He states that on the actual tax liability, interest has been paid by the Petitioner. He further states that against the total tax liability of Rs.3.31 crores the interest liability works out to 8.19 crores which makes it unreasonable and erroneous.
CIT Vs. State Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law, in admitting the additional ground of appeal when the assessee had not raised this issue before the Assessment Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ? Tribunal has jurisdiction to […]
