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 J&K&L HC quashed Nazir Ahmad Ronga’s detention under the Public Safety Act, citing vague allegations and lack of evidence, s...
Goods and Services Tax : AP High Court invalidates unsigned GST orders without DIN, citing CBIC guidelines. Learn key legal takeaways and compliance requir...
CA, CS, CMA : Summary of tax and regulatory updates: income tax bonds, GST rulings, SEBI amendments, customs tariffs, and DGFT trade policy chan...
Corporate Law : Kerala HC quashes rape case, stressing case-specific analysis of allegations. Assumption that women won’t file false sexual assa...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC ने DGGI की ₹2.5 करोड़ की वसूली को अवैध ठहराया। जान...
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 : Gujarat High Court grants bail to Pragnesh Manharbhai Kantariya in ₹537 crore fake transaction case, allowing conditional releas...
Income Tax : Karnataka High Court rules on TDS applicability under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act in the case of Abbey Business Services Ind...
Goods and Services Tax : Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed Nandan Steels’ appeal against GST credit denial, ruling that delay beyond the prescribed limit...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court invalidates assessment order in M.Vimalraj Vs Union of India due to lack of proper notice service under GST Act....
Goods and Services Tax : The Allahabad HC dismissed HDB Financial's writ petition challenging a ₹5.4 lakh GST penalty, advising the petitioner to pursue ...
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 question whether the charge was voluntary or involuntary will have to be decided with reference to the facts relating to the creation of such charge. If the charge is created voluntarily, it remains so, whether it is created before the amendment or after the amendment.
There is no finding of fact to the effect that actually the loan had been granted to the managing director or any other person on interest, or that interest had actually been collected and the collection of the interest was not reflected in the accounts.
Enactment of new provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of reducing more than not, increases litigation This is either because of the ambiguity or lack of clarity in the provision enacted or the manner in which the newly enacted provision is applied The present case falls in the second category as we shall presently see
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,644 made in the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81, being the amount transferred to the ‘molasses storage fund’ from the sale proceeds of the molasses ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that two courses were open to the assessee, one being to claim depreciation and the other being forgo the depreciation and any course which is beneficial to the assessee could be adopted and the incidence of tax can be legitimately reduced
It is evident from a reading of these two clauses that clause (iii) which permitted any amount paid by way of interest on a mortgage or other capital charge was deleted and clause (iv) was amended in such a manner as to make only that annual charge which is not voluntary or which does not amount to a capital charge alone deductible.
The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased a flat in Suvarnadeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short “Surnadeep”), Santacruz, Bombay, on March 21, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,140 for the purpose of his residence. He was residing in that flat On October 24, 1979, he sold the flat for Rs. 1,25,000
The decision in this case arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated June 1, 1985 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company carrying on business of manufacturing polyester filament yarn of the type known as Partially Oriented Yarn (“POY”)
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded.
