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 : Bombay HC rules GST on developer rights under a development agreement does not fall under reverse charge as per Entry 5B of Notifi...
Corporate Law : Allahabad HC: Anticipatory bail under BNSS is applicable in Gangsters Act cases initiated before July 1, 2024, if arrest apprehens...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala HC rules GST on services by clubs to members as unconstitutional, citing violation of mutuality principle and lack of legis...
Corporate Law : It is definitely most refreshing, most reassuring and so also certainly most reinvigorating to learn that while striking the right...
Corporate Law : Delhi HC fined BJP’s Shazia Ilmi ₹25K for hiding facts in her defamation suit against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai over a video...
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 ...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala High Court held that college, managed by an education trust, engaged in supplying food to students through canteen is requi...
Goods and Services Tax : Allahabad HC directs U.P. State to clarify STO's power to impose GST penalty under Rule 86B and Section 129....
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay HC rules on GST applicability to developer agreements, distinguishing them from TDR/FSI transfers under Entry 5B of GST not...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court grants interim relief in GST dispute on land development rights under a revenue-sharing agreement between Nirmal...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court declines to quash reassessment notice against Sanjay Patel, citing incomplete information and liberty to appeal....
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...
Benefit in lieu of salary payable to an employee opting for voluntary retirement is exempted from being charged to tax to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs by reason of section 10(10C); even if the payment is stretched over a period of years, the same would not become chargeable to tax in any subsequent assessment year
The making and sale of advertising materials for customers in the form of banner or hoarding or film-slide, etc. is `advertisement’ as defined under section 65(2); all commercial concerns engaged in any of the activities connected with advertisement, which includes making, preparing, displaying or exhibition of advertisement, answer the description of `advertising agency’.
6. Section 132(1) (b) & (c) of the Act to the extent relevant to the present case reads thus:- 132. (1) Where the [Director General or Director] or the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] [or any such (Joint Director) or (Joint Commissioner) as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board], in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-(a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section
6. Admittedly, the assessee in these appeals are non-resident companies having no permanent establishment in India. It is also not disputed that after the contract received by the assessee companies in the year 1983 and before, fresh contract was given to them by the ONGC only in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) argued that since the respondent / assessee
The First Respondent had filed a claim petition against the Petitioners before the arbitrator seeking a sum of over Rs.57 lakhs stated to be due under a hire-purchase agreement. The Petitioners raised a specific plea before the arbitrator that the claim petition was not maintainable as the first Petitioner had been declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR and that section 22 of SICA placed an embargo on the continuation of the arbitral proceedings against them.
While conducting an audit of EMAAR on 11.9.2007, the laptops of two employees of the Petitioner were seized by the Deputy Director, Income Tax (DDIT) in the course of conducting a Search and Seizure operation against EMAAR. Subsequently on 17.9.2007, the DDIT issued summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, to Ms. Sandhya Sama and Shri Sanjay K. Jain, the employees of the Petitioner firm
Search & seizure action u/s 132 was undertaken at the assessee’s premises. Thereafter an order of provisional attachment u/s 281B was passed. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the search and the provisional attachment. HELD dismissing the Petition: (1) Search action u/s 132 can be initiated only if the designated authority forms a reasonable belief
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ to waive the interest levied under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act for short) pertaining to three consecutive years in respect of which the original Demand had already been paid. The Petitioner has contended that for the Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Revenue has raised a demand of Rupees 2,84,546/-, Rupees 6,95,479/- and Rupees 15,23,079/- respectively in regard whereof Demand Notices were served on 30.03.1983, 27.04.1983 and 27.04.1983 respectively.
The income-tax department has the right to carry out a raid and attach property, if it has reason to suspect that income is likely to escape tax net in absence of prompt action, a division bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled. The division bench, comprising Justice Ranajana Desai and Justice JP Deodhar, passed […]
If apparently reliable material could not be directly used against an assessee solely because it was not collected during a Search of that assessee, a fortiori, material palpably concerning a third party with no connection with the raided party must be ignored.
