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...
Pr. CIT Vs Dilip Ranjrekar (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, the investment is made in a new property. The construction was not completed within a period of three years as narrated in section 54 of the Act. The delay was not because of the assessee, but beyond his control, since the construction was […]
The petitioner is an accused for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. There is an allegation against this petitioner that he illegally availed Input Tax Credit. The petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2018. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the prayer for bail and submits that this petitioner has taken the benefit of about Rs. 30 crores illegally by way of Input Tax Credit.
Shan Mohammad Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 129 & 130 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding Sections of the Rajasthan Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Section […]
If a human error which can be seen on naked eye is detected, such human error cannot be capitalised for penalisation. Normally, this Court could not have persuaded to accept the contention on prima facie value as it is a matter for decision by competent authority and this Court can only order release of the vehicle and goods as against Bank guarantee.
Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Rajasthan High Court) Respondents are directed to provisionally entertain the GST TRAN-1 and other returns of the petitioner either by way of opening the portal or manually. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Issue notice to respondents. Mr. Kinshuk Jain, learned counsel accepts […]
M. K. Agrotech Private Ltd. Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court) The main purpose of crossing a demand draft is to ensure that the payment is cleared by means of an account, i.e., the payment is deposited in the Bank Account i.e the person in whose favour the demand draft has been drawn. It ensures the […]
Daily Express Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Section 129 is a self-contained code. It lays down the entire mechanism for provisional release of the goods. Section 129 begins with a non-obstante clause. It stands protected from every other provision. Earlier this Court, on more than one occasion, has held that unfilled Part […]
PCIT Vs Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Section 292BB does not dispense with issuance of any notice that is mandated to be issued under the Act, but merely cures the defect of service of such notice if an objection in such regard is not taken before completion of assessment or reassessment as time […]
Delhi HC to examine validity of Circular No.07/07/2017-GST & Rule 61(5). Challenge on due date for filing GST return and delegation of authority. Next hearing on 12th February, 2019.
Claim for deduction under section 35(2AB) could not be defeated on the ground that approval from prescribed authority was granted in the year subsequent to the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred.
