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...
Corporate Law : Madras HC quashed criminal proceedings, holding that the wharfage refund dispute disclosed no criminal offence and was essentially...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that failure to pass a fresh assessment within Section 153 limitation required acceptance of the returned i...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase addition is sustained only on an estima...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court set aside certain GST orders after holding that DRC-01 notice should have preceded adjudication following the ea...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court restored a delayed GST appeal, holding that sufficient cause and mandatory pre-deposit could not be ignored on...
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...
Tripura High Court held that abatement of duty can’t be withheld solely on ground that Superintendent did not record that sealing was done in such a manner that machine could not be operated as it was not within the control of the Appellant in what manner the Superintendent passed an order after sealing the machine.
High Court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to assessee-journalists who being accused of cheating depositors through Ponzi schemes as assessee had been indicted in an economic offence which was of serious in nature and the larger angle of conspiracy with regard to patronage of political and other persons in growth of such ponzi firms were required to be unearthed, no effective investigation could be made by the police by enlarging assessee on pre-arrest bail, even if he was ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation by remaining on pre-arrest bail.
Prime facie, there are serious and specific allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIR in question for which her custodial interrogation would be imperative, more so, since she allegedly removed crucial documents having a direct link with the proceedings, which were pending against her and her husband under the CGST Act.
Refusal to issue customs clearance to the High Alumina Refractory Cement (HARC) imported – demand for production of BIS certificate for the goods imported by the petitioners
M/s. Mili Enterprise Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) High Court issued notices to the Government observing that the department should at least provide the reason for blocking the input tax credit and it should be specified in a notice under rule 86(A). FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT Heard learned Advocate […]
Vennapusa Venkata Subba Reddy Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is allegged that petitioner has issued fake GST invoices with a total turnover of Rs. 397,28,11,944/- without supply of goods to different business firms/companies by passing on a total fraudulent input tax credit of Rs. 61,30,33,274/- in respect of 21 firms, out […]
M/s. Kone Elevators (India) Pvt. Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Undoubtedly, the assessee had not submitted the ratification certificate to be obtained from the CBDT for claiming exemption under Section 10B of the Act. However, there are certain confusions even within the Department Officials regarding production of such ratification certificate from the CBDT. The […]
Director Identification Numbers (DINs) of assesses-director allotted under Rule 10 of the Companies (Appointments and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014, were not liable to be deactivated or cancelled solely for the reason that assesses-director stood disqualified for appointment / reappointment as Directors of Companies by operation of Section 164(2).
mere legal ownership will not be enough to fasten liability on the assessee in respect of the market value of the seized assets even though the said seized assets belong to the assessee. The Court held that on the valuation date the right of the assessee was in jeopardy and therefore having regard to the definition of net wealth and asset as appearing in Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in estimating the value of such asset.
Vishwataj Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: In present case, the Hon’ble high court held Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in a routine manner, when dispute pertains to examination of facts and when there is alternative efficacious remedy available. Held: The assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the […]
