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.
Income Tax : Delhi HC rules in PCIT Vs Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., ITA 579/2018, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in tax assessme...
Corporate Law : HP High Court upholds the right to be forgotten, ordering the masking of a rape accused name post-acquittal, emphasizing privacy r...
Corporate Law : J&K&L HC rules that merely pronouncing Talaq thrice doesnt end marriage or absolve husbands maintenance obligations. Judgment in F...
Corporate Law : Jharkhand High Court upholds dismissal of a police constable for maintaining a live-in relationship, ruling it a violation of serv...
Corporate Law : Punjab and Haryana HC declares preventive detention on mere suspicion draconian. Power not to enforce ‘Police Rule’ arbitraril...
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...
Income Tax : The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur in the matter of, Abhay Singla v. Union of India, has recently issued notice in a public interest...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs Madhukar K. Inamdar H.U.F., addressing applicability of CBDT Circular dated 15-05-2008 on tax...
Goods and Services Tax : Read the detailed judgment of Kerala High Court on K.S. Pareed Vs State of Kerala regarding GST return filing deadline extension t...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Reassessment cannot be solely based on a reevaluation of exi...
Custom Duty : Read the full judgment of Commissioner of Customs Vs Baburam Harichand by Gujarat High Court. Industrial betel nuts and supari are...
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...
This petition seeks a direction for releasing of 10 kgs. of silver jewellery, belonging to the petitioner but seized from his adoptive father on 20.11.1979 during search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (
CCE v. Maha Laxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd – non-submission of one particular return ST-3 for only quarter ending December 1997, on the part of the assessee cannot be said to be intentional withholding of the same for the purposes of avoiding the payment of tax, which has been paid by the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that amount of tax was only Rs. 1,000/-. Therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise has committed no error of law in dropping the proceedings and the CESTAT has also committed no error in upholding the same and in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, in revision.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.-This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 29-3-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘said Act’)
CIT vs. Raval Tiles (Bombay High Court) Where the Tribunal did not pass an order on the appeal despite considerable delay and instead fixed the matter repeatedly for ‘clarifications’ and thereafter closed the matter for orders on the basis of written submissions and without hearing the assessee, HELD the procedure followed by the Tribunal was not in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lacs, which had been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the said Act. The second issue pertains to the deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292/- by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained security deposits under Section 68 of the said Act.
Since this appears to be the first case of its kind in India (subject to correction) where derivatives contracts are challenged as illegal and void and also since the jargon is not too familiar even to P.Ramanatha Iyer (of Law Lexicon) and Black (of Law Dictionary), a brief prelude has become necessary before we plunge into details.
The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the goods manufactured by hundred percent EOU (Export-Oriented Undertaking) when sold in India can be subjected to levy of Education Cess under the Central Excise Act.
Profits and gains of a newly established undertaking, therefore, have got to be computed as per the provisions of section 29 to section 43A and if the assessee claims relief under Chapter VI-A of the Act, then it is not open to the assessee to disclaim depreciation allowance. This is because Chapter VI-A is an independent code by itself for computing these special types of deductions. In other words, one must first calculate the gross total income from which one must deduct a percentage of incomes contemplated by Chapter VI-A. That such special incomes were required to be computed as per the provisions of the Act, viz., section 29 to section 43A, which included section 32(2). Therefore, one cannot exclude depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking for computing deductions under Chapter VI-A. Therefore, the appellant’s claim for allowance of deduction under section 80HH, without taking into consideration the current depreciation will have to be rejected.
Wallfort Shares & stock Brokers Ltd v ITO Where the assessee bought units of a mutual fund, received tax-free dividend thereon and immediately thereafter redeemed the units and claimed the difference between the cost price and redemption value as a loss and the same had been upheld by a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal as a genuine loss,
It is also to be noted that Dr. Pal at that point of time tried to distinguish the said judgment in the Hamilton’s case (supra) with the judgment of Hope (India) Ltd. (supra) and submitted that there is no inconsistency in the view taken by the subsequent Division Bench in the Hope (India) Ltd case (supra) and in this subsequent decision the Hon’ble Division Bench duly considered the judgment delivered in the Hamilton’s case
