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.
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC ने DGGI की ₹2.5 करोड़ की वसूली को अवैध ठहराया। जान...
CA, CS, CMA : Key tax & legal updates from 3rd-9th Mar 2025: Income tax exemptions, GST rulings, RBI liquidity measures, IBC cases, and Supreme ...
Income Tax : Explore February 2025's key income tax rulings covering issues like R&D deductions, secondment taxability, trust exemptions, and d...
Goods and Services Tax : February 2025 GST Case Law Compendium covers significant High Court and Supreme Court judgments on key GST issues. Orders issued u...
Corporate Law : Explore key landmark civil cases in India, including their legal impact on constitutional rights, reservations, governance, and wo...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
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 ...
Corporate Law : Karnataka HC upholds Flipkart's stance on TDS under Section 195, ruling seconded employees' salaries as reimbursements, not taxabl...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court sets aside DRP's order in FIS Payment case, directing a fresh review under ITAT rulings on Section 56(2)(viib). K...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court held that repeated placing and removing from call books is not a valid justification for non-adjudication of show...
Goods and Services Tax : Mohit Enterprises Vs Commissioner of State GST And Vat Department of Trade And Taxes Delhi (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court, in...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that seizure of goods under section 129 of the IGST/ CGST Act can be don...
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...
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...
The appellants are the Additional Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (the revenue); and the respondent, Ponkunnam Traders, a firm, is the assessee. The judgment under appeal is reported as Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, [1972] 83 ITR 508 (Ker). Since the question involved is fairly simple,
Badrinath Agarwal v. CIT (Allahabad High Court) 65 ITR 242 (All. ) In estimating the income the conditions of trade obtaining and the average margin of profit in the particular line of business are to be borne in mind. It is clear that these factors in the present case have been kept in view and, therefore, it is not possible to say that the estimate of income was arbitrary or capricious to justify holding that some error of law had been committed by the Tribunal in confirming the flat rate of 5% applied by the departmental authorities
Under Income-tax Act the annual value of the property is to be taken as a sum which the property might reasonably be expected to fetch. The annual value is no doubt a hypothetical sum. But what is to be taken into consideration is the whole of the consideration which the landlord receives from the tenant for his right to use and occupy the property.
The question arising for consideration both in the reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act as well as in W.P. No. 925 of 1955 are identical and relate to the proper rule to be applied for determining the amortisation of films for computing the income, profits and gains of the assessee which is carrying on business as a film distributor. The assessee in the Reference Case No. 27 of 1955 is the petitioner in the writ petition.
CIT v. S Sen & Others (Orissa High Court) 17 ITR 355 (Orissa) The proceeding arises out of two application consolidated because of the facts being identical, by the Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess profits Tax, Bihar and Orissa, under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess profits tax Act for the stating a case and a case stated for the opinion of this Court on the following three question of law :-
