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.
Goods and Services Tax : Summary of recent GST High Court decisions on refund validity, tax evasion penalties, provisional attachment limits, ITC denial, a...
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...
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 : Allahabad High Court sets aside GST demand against Jindal Communication, citing confusion over turnover attributed to two firms sh...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court quashes CGST Section 74 order against Singh Electrical Store due to lack of reasoning on fraud or misstatemen...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC rules on the expiry of a provisional attachment order under WBGST/CGST Act in the case of JL Enterprises. Details cour...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court addresses a writ petition challenging a CGST order, noting a prior SGST adjudication on the same issue and direc...
Goods and Services Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes GST demand on the assignment of long-term leasehold rights by Alfa Tools, citing the Gujarat Chamber of...
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...
Addition made by AO was justified with regard to introduction of bogus share capital in the form of accommodation entries as the transactions done were clearly sham with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature.
Ms Napin Impex Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of DGST (Delhi High Court) The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer, which trades inter alia in PVC raisins and other food items such as beverages. The petitioner alleges that its premises were visited by the Revenue authorities on 29.08.2018 when the DGST officials directed […]
Rajesh Jindal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi (West) (Delhi High Court) Counsel for the respondent says that statements have been recorded inter alia of one Sh. Deepak Taneja and Sh. Ravinder Tyagi, both of whom have stated, giving specifics, that the petitioner has threatened them since they were made dummy directors by the […]
Tvl. R K Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) It is also not in dispute that the bill is addressed only to the writ petitioner’s principal office at Sivakasi; delivery alone is to be made at Virudhunagar. I am of the view that even if by mistake, a wrong instruction had been given to the driver of the vehicle to head towards Sivakasi. Still it would not really matter. The only question that the respondent ought to have posed is […]
The Gujarat HC conclusively held that the Respondent ought to have directed the sanctioning Authority to refund the duty of the amount in cash instead of credit in the CENVAT account and for the foregoing reasons, the Petition was allowed to succeed.
Lalit Agrawal Vs ICAI & ANR (Delhi High Court) Hon;ble Court is unable to accept the contention that the Board of Discipline does not have the jurisdiction to examine the alleged misconduct which includes Sexual Harrassment on the part of the petitioner. Clause (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Act is wide, […]
Stove Kraft Pvt. Limited Vs Assistant State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Petitioner is a dealer. The goods and vehicle have been detained; in the e-way bill generated, petitioner has shown three invoices. Noting that separate e-way bill will have to be generated to each of the invoices, goods have been detained. It is to […]
Merely because non-interest bearing advance was given to third parties, the same would not justify that the test of ‘commercial expediency’ was not satisfied by assessee. Hence, disallowance of proportionate interest made by AO was not justified, as the same was given for business purposes.
Making of incorrect claim in law would not by itself amount to concealment of income or giving inaccurate particulars of income. Since revenue had not been able to show even remotely that there was any concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income, appeal was to be dismissed.
DLF Hotel Holding Case: Interest On Borrowed Funds Allowed As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(iii) Even If Some Of Funds Financed To Subsidiary Companies
