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 : Bombay HC held that a 21-year-old woman cannot be compelled to return home or marry against her wishes, treating residence, marria...
Corporate Law : The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for delivering judgments since every judicial orde...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It r...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if ca...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
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...
Income Tax : Delhi HC upheld a Section 69C addition for unexplained capitation fee, holding that no credible evidence established its source an...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC held that Section 80P(4) does not bar Section 80P(2)(d) deduction on interest earned by a cooperative society from inve...
Corporate Law : Gauhati HC held that transportation of manufactured tea is not exempt under Entry 21(a), as Section 65B(5) governs the meaning of ...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC directed processing of GST refund with interest, holding that appellate orders must be implemented unless stayed by a com...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC held that GST refund cannot be withheld merely due to a proposed appeal, directed release of refund with interest, and tr...
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...
Held that, non-supply of documents referred in the ‘reason to believe’ notice along with the notice to the assessee deems the reassessment proceeding and any consequential proceedings illegal and is a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
A short question of law involved in this writ petition is that whether a second notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the assessing officer after the expiry of one year as per Section 153(6)(i) is valid without disposing the return filed to the first notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the very same assessment year.
Gujarat High Court held that once the primary onus is discharged by the assessee, it is the assessing officer who will need to make an inquiry under Section 133(6). Addition unsustainable in absence of such inquiry.
Assessing Officer, however, denied the benefit on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish a certificate from the concerned Port Authority certifying that the structure was a part of the Port, which it considered mandatory in view of the Board’s notification dated 23rd June 2000 followed by Circular No.10 of 2005 dated 16th December 2005.
Calcutta High Court held that timeline prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) relating to completion of the proceedings and passing of the final order within 90 days from the date of receipt of inquiry report is mandatory in nature.
Dr. U.S. Awasthi Vs Adjudicating Authority Pmla & Anr. (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner’s contention is that in terms of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005, only orders under Section 13(2) and Section 8 of PMLA are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. As per the Petitioner, an order passed in an application seeking cross-examination […]
Under the terms of Deed of Licence, since the petitioner had agreed to pay service tax in addition to the monthly licence fee fixed thereunder and the GST being a levy which has been introduced in the place of service tax, the petitioner cannot absolve herself of the liability to pay GST in place of service tax.
Jaiswal Machinery Stores Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax Lko. (Allahabad High Court) It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has reduced the quantum of tax imposed by the assessing authority from Rs.10,34,000/- to Rs.2,82,125/-. From the perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that finding recorded is contradictory. On the […]
HC directed Water Resources Department to take into consideration the Representation filed by CG Associates w.r.t the refund of additional amount of GST paid by the CG Associates due to change in rate of taxes.
CIT/PCIT Vs Paradeep Port Trust (Orissa High Court) The very text of the Finance Act, 2008 and in particular Section 3 thereof which inserts the amended Section 2(15) clearly states that “the following clause shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009.” Clearly, therefore, the amendment is prospective. Consequently, the Court […]
