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 : Calcutta HC held that the three-month delay in executing a PITNDPS detention order was justified by administrative procedures and ...
Income Tax : Bombay HC upheld ITAT's order, holding reassessment under Section 148 unsustainable as full reasons were not supplied and relied o...
Corporate Law : The Court ruled that, without a transfer application and parallel insolvency proceedings, shifting a winding-up case to NCLT was u...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court remitted the GST assessment for fresh adjudication, directing deposit of the entire disputed tax before reconsid...
Corporate Law : Allahabad High Court held Cyber Cell cannot freeze an entire bank account and sought safeguards where an advocate's professional f...
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...
J.S. Grover Autos Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (Punjab & Haryana High Court) It is undisputed fact that petitioner has filed an appeal before First Appellate Authority against the assessment order, whereby demand was created. It is also undisputed that Board Circulars are binding on department and as per Circular […]
R.R. Distributors Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Tax, GST (Delhi High Court) In our view, the non- filing of part 7B of table 7(a) and table 7(d) of TRAN-1 Form cannot impair the rights of the petitioner to claim transitional ITC, if he is otherwise eligible. This Court has observed in numerous decisions that […]
R. R. Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (Delhi High Court) 1. The taxpayers were not provided sufficient time to upload the data in TRAN-2 Form. 2. On 4 th January, 2018, when the Petitioner attempted to load TRAN-2 Form, no time had been specified under the Rules, which could be deemed to […]
Super India Paper Product Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) 1. It is seen that since there is no effective mechanism provided for the revision/rectification of TRAN-1 Form, the Petitioners were forced to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. There is no dispute as to the fact that the Petitioners […]
Rahul Agencies Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court) 1. To issue notices to respondents wherein validity of Section 16(2)(c) read with Rule 86A are challenged. 2. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court issued Notices to Respondents including Finance ministry on Section16(2)(C) which provides that input tax credit (ITC) must be allowed to […]
Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (Umbrella Organization of Amity Group of Institutions) Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. (Delhi High Court) 1. In our view, since the statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the respondents/revenue cannot veer away from the same. 2. The impugned assessment order as well as the impugned […]
LAIEQ Ahmad Siddiqui Vs Goverment of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT 1. During the course of arguments, it has been informed by Mr. Kirtiman Singh that Import Duty payable on import of Amphotericin B, which is a drug being used for treatment of Mucormycosis (Black […]
Devgiri Exports Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Learned counsel relies on judgements passed by the High Court of Delhi, Madras and Bombay to submit that the faceless assessment done under section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been examined by the High Court without insisting […]
MS Lokesh Constructions P Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. It is required to be noted that initially, the petitioner had declared its income as ₹ 87,55,390/-; which was revised to ₹ 73,59,500/-. 2. Via the impugned assessment order dated 07.04.2021, an addition of ₹ 13,95,890/-, has been made to the declared income of […]
The suit for malicious prosecution having been filed on 11th April 2008 which was within the period of one year, was therefore well within the limitation prescribed under The Limitation Act, 1963. Hence, the suit was well within limitation, as the period of limitation under Section 3 and Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1962, r/w Entry 74 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, would have ended only on 12th April 2008, which was one day after the date when the suit for malicious prosecution was presented by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
