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 : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that refund arising from an unconstitutional GST levy carries a constitutional right to interes...
Corporate Law : The Allahabad High Court observed that criminal case delays are caused not only by judicial officers but also by inadequate infras...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court quashed a POCSO FIR after noting that the relationship was consensual and the parties were married with a chi...
Goods and Services Tax : You Already Filed One Refund Application… So You Cannot File Another?” Bombay High Court Says GST Law Does Not Work That Way S...
Corporate Law : The article questions why West Uttar Pradesh has been denied a High Court Bench despite contributing the majority of pending cases...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC has directed CBDT to ensure that there is a mandatory one-month gap between date for furnishing tax audit reports (unde...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court granted a one-month extension for filing TARs under Section 44AB for AY 2025-26, citing delayed audit utility...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court is hearing a petition from the Chartered Accountants Association regarding persistent glitches on the new I...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without proper hearing and a reasoned order. The Court quashed th...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation under Section 11(2) should be condoned where gen...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court held that consolidated show cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act can legally cover multiple...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 3...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gain...
Income Tax : The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled tha...
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...
The Court ruled that large gaps between GST returns and ITR figures cannot justify Section 74 demands without forensic verification. Actual supplies must be established through audit.
The Court clarified that abetment requires proof of the accused’s intention to instigate suicide. Angry words spoken in a quarrel, without mens rea, do not meet the threshold.
The Court held that once one GST authority initiates proceedings, the other cannot start fresh action on the same subject. State-issued orders were struck down for violating Section 6(2)(b).
The Court held that findings of the appellate authorities clearly established the assessee’s role as a developer. With concurrent factual findings, the appeal was rejected for lack of any substantial legal question.
The issue was whether retention money credited and subjected to TDS accrued as income. The Court held that retention money is contingent on contract completion and not taxable until the right to receive crystallises.
While not deciding the validity of the disputed notifications, the High Court granted relief due to lack of hearing.The adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the case after receiving the taxpayers reply.
The High Court quashed an ex parte GST adjudication passed without personal hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after the Supreme Court decides the pending challenge to limitation-extension notifications.
The issue was whether a search-based assessment could be completed within 12 months after a Supreme Court ruling. The Court held that only the 60-day extended period under section 153B applied, rendering the assessment time-barred.
The issue was whether one assessment order could cover three different tax years. The Court held that such composite orders are impermissible and directed fresh, year-wise assessments.
The issue involved two separate GST assessment orders issued for the same tax period. The Court ordered consolidated adjudication to avoid overlapping demands, subject to partial pre-deposit by the assessee.
