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 : 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...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 143(3) assessment after finding that the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity of...
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 : The Court quashed criminal proceedings after finding that the petitioner had ceased to be a director before the due date for filin...
Income Tax : Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, the requirement of further probe into digital and fina...
Income Tax : The Orissa High Court ruled that an ITAT appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the authorised representative violated the virt...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC directed the State to determine and reimburse differential GST arising from GST implementation on works contracts, su...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras HC held tobacco remains unmanufactured where no new product emerges, setting aside higher compensation cess demand and recl...
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 held that failure to personally serve notice before cancelling GST registration violated principles of natural justice. It directed reconsideration of the case on merits, emphasizing fairness in procedural compliance.
The issue was whether a single show cause notice can cover multiple years. The Court held such composite notices invalid and directed issuance of separate notices.
The issue was whether telecom interconnect charges qualify as royalty. The Court held they do not, relying on earlier precedent and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns may be reconsidered if pending returns and dues are cleared. It directed authorities to evaluate restoration upon compliance with Rule 22.
The Court held that cancellation due to non-filing of returns can be reconsidered if the taxpayer complies with Rule 22 requirements. It directed authorities to examine restoration upon payment of dues.
The Court upheld rejection of condonation where delay exceeded 365 days under CBDT Circular. It clarified that Commissioners lack authority beyond this limit but relief may be sought from CBDT.
The court held that the 2-year time limit under Section 54 is mandatory and binding on authorities. However, delay can be condoned by High Courts under Article 226 in genuine cases to grant rightful refunds.
The Court held that failure to address objections regarding sample mismatch vitiates the order. It directed fresh adjudication with proper reasoning.
The Court held that Tribunal remand is not a fresh reference under transfer pricing law. Hence, limitation expired earlier, entitling the assessee to refund.
The court held that granting status quo over the full property was disproportionate to the plaintiff’s limited claim. It set aside the injunction for failing to consider balance of convenience.
