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 : 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 : Allahabad HC: Anticipatory bail under BNSS is applicable in Gangsters Act cases initiated before July 1, 2024, if arrest apprehens...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala HC rules GST on services by clubs to members as unconstitutional, citing violation of mutuality principle and lack of legis...
Corporate Law : It is definitely most refreshing, most reassuring and so also certainly most reinvigorating to learn that while striking the right...
Corporate Law : Delhi HC fined BJP’s Shazia Ilmi ₹25K for hiding facts in her defamation suit against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai over a video...
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 : Kerala High Court held that college, managed by an education trust, engaged in supplying food to students through canteen is requi...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC directs U.P. State to clarify STO's power to impose GST penalty under Rule 86B and Section 129....
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay HC rules on GST applicability to developer agreements, distinguishing them from TDR/FSI transfers under Entry 5B of GST not...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court grants interim relief in GST dispute on land development rights under a revenue-sharing agreement between Nirmal...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court declines to quash reassessment notice against Sanjay Patel, citing incomplete information and liberty to 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...
Vikram Singh Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee is that the notice was not issued with the prior sanction of the Joint Commissioner, but sanction was accorded by the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the A.O. was […]
Rakshit jain Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) It is the argument of the petitioners that the obligation to verify and submit the ITR on behalf of the company has been placed by the legislature at the door of the managing director of the company and, consequently, it is inappropriate and unfair to rope in the […]
Rajasthan High Court directed CBDT to consider the representation of the petitioner-Association and take a decision on both the aspects i.e. extension of date by another 15 days and extension of due for the purpose of Explanation 1 to Section 234A of the Act for waiver of interest and decide the same by passing speaking order preferably before 10.10.2018.
Alamelu Veerappan Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, the limitation period for issuance of notice for reopening expired on 31.3.2017. The impugned notice was issued on 30.3.2017 in the name of the dead person. On being intimated about the death, the Department sent the notice to the petitioner – his spouse to participate in the […]
Ramilaben D. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Details of the sales and purchase in shares during the year resulted in the conclusion of the Tribunal that total 73 transactions were disclosed. Only one transaction is shown in long term capital gain category. The other transactions are sales and purchase of shares during the year itself. […]
We have found that the Revenue’s advocates are often handicapped for neither the records are produced nor are officers competent to give instructions to these advocates for the Revenue present in the Court. It is time to remind the Revenue that arguing legal matters or proceedings before the highest court in the State should not be taken casually and lightly.
Prabhat Agarwal Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) In this case revenue played a subterfuge, in trying to cover up its omission, and in ante dating the record, in the attempt to establish that such reasons existed, and this court’s interference was not called for. In these circumstances, this court hereby directs the Chief Commissioner concerned […]
In view of the GST regime and the IT platform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds.
If the view taken by the AO was a plausible view and if it results in loss of revenue, it could not be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the purpose of invoking the power under section 263.
Janak Kanakbhai Trivedi Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) It is the case of the appellant that the impugned ancestral property was actually acquired by the HUF of the appellant and that actually by mistake the appellant has given his individual PAN number at the time of execution of the sale deed. It has been argued […]
