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 : 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 : Punjab & Haryana HC confirms that the Armed Forces Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the legality of a ‘displeasure award’ g...
Corporate Law : Bombay HC rules that relatives of a husband cannot be charged under Section 498A IPC solely for advising a wife to tolerate cruelt...
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...
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...
Income Tax : Telangana High Court held that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act must comply with the requirement of the Scheme whether...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that half-hearted approach on the part of AO to make additions on the issue of bogus purchase would not be ...
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...
CIT Vs. Jaswand Sons (2010) 328 ITR 442 (P&H) – On this issue, the High Court held that income derived from sale of export incentive cannot be said to be income ‘derived from’ the industrial undertaking and therefore, such income is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IB.
The plea of alternative remedy cannot be accepted as question involved in the present case is of lack of jurisdiction on admitted facts. In the present case, the petitioner furnished all the information and raised a dispute of taxability relying upon the judgment in Kone Elevators (India) Ltds case (supra). In such a situation there could be no question of attempt at tax evasion. Invocation of jurisdiction to impose penalty at the Information Collection Centre was not called for.
In a setback to stockbroker Bhupen Dalal, an accused in the 1992 securities scam, a special court has allowed his posh flat in upscale Altmount Road area here to be auctioned to recover income tax dues running into crores of rupees. Justice D K Deshm
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT,, ITA 626/2010 and W.P. 758/2010 dated 12 August 2010, – Bombay High Court rules on prospective operation of Rule 8D and upholds the constitutional validity of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A and Rule 8D.
The High Court held that notice issued for reopening the assessment which could be rectified under section 154 is invalid.
CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals – section 28(iiid) covers only the “profit” (difference between sale consideration and face value of the DEPB credit) and that the “face value” is assessable u/s 28(iiib) is not correct. The entire amount received on transfer of the DEPB credit is “profits” and falls under s. 28(iiid). There was no basis or justification for the Tribunal to hold that the face value of the DEPB credit can be reduced from the sale consideration. It is not permissible to bifurcate the proceeds of the DEPB into “face value” and “excess of face value”. The approach of the Tribunal is misconceived and unsustainable. As the assessee had an export turnover exceeding Rs.10 crores and did not fulfill the conditions set out in the third proviso to s. 80HHC (3), it was not entitled to a deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount received on transfer of DEPB.
P&H High Court in a ruling in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT held that Assessee gets title to the properly on the issuance cf an allotment letter and the payment cf instalments is only a consequential action upon which the delivery of possession flows and in calculation of holding period the period from the date of allotment and upto the date of possession will also be counted.
Delhi High Court Ruling: Transfer Pricing – Sec 92 – An important ruling by the Hon’ble High Court wherein it has been held that the methodology to be adopted by the Revenue Authorities for making an adjustment should be equitable and fair, and has ruled on the payment for the use of intangible assets and attributing arm’s length consideration for activities carried out by the licensee, etc. [Maruti Suzuki India Limited – W.P. 6876/2008]
Prudential Assurance Company Limited (‘the Petitioner’ or ‘the Company’), a sub-account duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) filed a writ petition (Writ petition no.866 of 2010 ) with the Bombay High Court against the show-cause notice issued under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Commissioner). The Commissioner was seeking to revise an assessment order determined on the basis of a ruling of the Authority for Advance Ruling (‘the AAR’) in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund (AAR No. 678/2006). The Bombay High Court has quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner and held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) after applying the AAR ruling in petitioner’s own case, cannot be regarded erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the tax department. Further, the High Court also observed that as per section 245S of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the ruling in the case of Fidelity Northstar Fund cannot displace the binding character of the advance ruling rendered between the Petitioner and the tax department.
The Supreme Court is likely to hold a preliminary hearing in the landmark Vodafone International Holdings case on Monday next (September 27). British telecom operator Vodafone had on September 14 filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, after the Bomb
