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 : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : Jharkhand HC directs the state to use its Special Branch to identify illegal immigrants allegedly from Bangladesh in six districts...
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 admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Corporate Law : Bombay HC upholds priority of Janaseva Sahakari Bank's secured interest over Sales Tax Dept’s claims, setting aside the mutation...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court quashes reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, citing procedural lapses and lack of valid grounds unde...
Company Law : Delhi High Court held that timelines under Regulation 35A of the CIRP Regulations, 2016 for filing avoidance application are direc...
Income Tax : Delhi HC held that the settlement consideration as received was liable to be recognized as capital gains and the same couldn’t p...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that passing of order by the revenue under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act on the basis of fresh groun...
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...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
Whether a person who is not actual service provider, but discharges the Service tax liability on the Taxable Services, under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on inputs/inputs services/Capital Goods for payment of GTA Services tax, even if he is not using such inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services? Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 6.5.2010 in CEA No.99 of 2008 CCE v. M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd . etc . Appeal Dismissed
Even higher liability of the assessee had to be treated to be in issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 when appeal had been preferred was not permissible. The view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with above statutory provision.
CIT v Grewal Brothers – No doubt the firm and the partners may be separate entities for income tax and it may be permissible for a firm to give a contract to its partners and deduct tax from the payment made as per s 194C, but it has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether there was any separate subcontract or the firm merely acted as an agent as pleaded in the present case. The case of the assessee is that it was the partners who were executing the transportation contract by using their trucks and the payment from the companies was routed through the firm as an agent. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted this plea on facts. Once this plea was upheld, it cannot be held that there was a separate contract between the firm and the partners in which case the firm was required to deduct tax from the payment made to its partners under s 194C.
CIT V. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. (ITA No. 164 of 2008) (Del)- Taxpayer filed its return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 on 31 March 2003 declaring a loss. The due date of filing the return of loss in terms of provisions of section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act,1 961 (the Act) was 31 October 2001. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (the AO) did not allow the carry forward of unabsorbed loss including the unabsorbed depreciation. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the AO’s order and held that the taxpayer was not allowed to carry forward the losses by virtue of section 80 of the Act. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 2000-0 1 and 2001-02. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the tax authorities filed an appeal before the High Court.
Though the excise duty was not paid at the time of clearance strictly in accordance with rules governing the same, the assessee cannot be found fault with because according to the assessee the said goods were not excisable to tax. Now the said stand has been vindicated by the order of the Appellate Authority, which has become final.
There is no dispute that C.B.E. & C. issued circular dated 27-12-2002. As per the circular, in case of bulk liquid cargo imports, shore tank receipt quantity should be taken as the basis for levy of customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that C.B.E.& C.’s circular comes into effect from 24-3-2003 on which date the Commissioner notified the same to the benefit of the parties within his jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT found fault with the same and rightly came to the conclusion that the circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. shall come into effect from the date it was issued and not from the date when it is notified by way of public notice.
The chemicals namely ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and those were repacked into small packs of 1 kg. and cleared as ‘trading goods’ without payment of duty. the Deputy Commissioner had made an order on 03-02-1998 in respect of one of the items covered thereunder and held that there was no suppression of facts as the respondent firm has already brought the matter to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. The show cause notice dated 29.3.2000 was time barred and it was rightly set-aside by the Tribunal.
DIT v Sahu Jain Trust – Exemption under s 11 — A charitable trust, if acquires tenancy right in respect of some immovable property owned by a different person, and thereafter sublets the said tenancy right and in the process earns some income, such income should not be treated to be an income from business as to attract the provisions contained in s 11(4A) — as held by KolHC in DIT v Sahu Jain Trust; ITA No. 38 of 2001, 13 April 2011
Richter Holding Ltd v. ADIT – The Vodafone controversy continues – To determine taxability of acquisition of shares of a non-resident company holding majority shares in an Indian company by another non-resident, it may be necessary for the fact finding authority to lift the corporate veil to look into the real nature of transaction to ascertain virtual facts.
In so far as claiming the amount set out towards warranty is concerned, the apex court in the case of Rotark Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 has held that the principle is that the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts under section 37.
