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 : Delhi HC fined BJP’s Shazia Ilmi ₹25K for hiding facts in her defamation suit against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai over a video...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court rules police cannot summon an advocate for client information, protecting lawyer-client confidentiality and lega...
CA, CS, CMA : Summary of key tax and regulatory updates for the week ending 30th March 2025, covering income tax, GST, customs, SEBI, RBI, DGFT,...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court grants divorce citing husband's disinterest in family life and conjugal relations, emphasizing mental cruelty as...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court highlights legal gaps in cyberbullying cases, calls for specific legislation, noting BNS's inadequacy, in a bail...
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 : Uttarakhand HC restores GST registration of Devendra Singh Adhikari after returns and dues payment, following a precedent case....
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi High Court permits B. Braun Medical India's GST ITC claim, overriding a supplier's GSTN error. Court focused on factual supp...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala High Court allows ITC claim for late GSTR-3B filings, citing extended time limits under Section 16(5). Order re-evaluation ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court dismisses appeal, citing Tecmax Electronics' negligence in tracking order, leading to delayed CESTAT filing. ...
Custom Duty : Delhi HC directs Customs to preserve CCTV footage upon receiving complaints of illegal foreign currency seizure from travelers at ...
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...
There is no doubt that the non-compete agreement incorporates a restrictive covenant on the right of the Assessee to carry on his activity of development of software. It may not alter the structure of his activity, in the sense that he could carry on the same activity in an organization in which he had a small stake, but it certainly impairs the carrying on of his activity. To that extent it is a loss of a source of income for him and it is of an enduring nature, as contrasted with a transitory or ephemeral loss.
CIT vs Best Plastics (P) Ltd. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have both relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 272 to have that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) binding on the officers of the Income-tax Department. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889.
CIT vs Dharmendra Sharma – This decision was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court and by an order dt. 7th March, 2007 [reported as CIT vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268—Ed.], the Supreme Court observed that it was concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of s. 43B of the Act. The assessee was entitled to claim the benefit provided under s. 43B of the Act for that period particularly in view of the fact that he had contributed to provident fund before filing the return. Accordingly, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of Gauhati High Court was dismissed.
In the present case, admittedly the Assessment Year being 1988-89 and the search having taken place on 03.07.1987 the return of income was not due before 31.07.1988. Therefore, whether the income represented by the value of the asset was shown in the return of income or not became irrelevant once a declaration had been made about such income having not been disclosed
THE High Court stays the transfer of a file from one ITO to another; the transferred ITO ignores the High Court order and proceeds with the assessment. Later on the High Court quashing the transfer, the old ITO proceeds with assessment. Tribunal rules that it is time barred; High Court concurs.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by its order dated 23.01.1995, referred the following question, which according to it covered the controversy raised in the four questions proposed by the Revenue, for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act
FOR the Income Tax Department, the latest ruling of the Larger Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court amounts to a big win. And, at the centre of the dispute was whether the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchasing new plant and machinery before the same is put to use is revenue expenditure or to be added to the ‘actual cost’ of the asset? What further complicated the issue was the fact that the assessee was a running company and wanted to set up a new plant by buying new machinery out of borrowed capital.
ANY business is a tricky ‘business’ for its doers ! It is tricky because of the presence of many parameters beyond the control of the doers. Under such circumstances, what is to be treated as normal expenditure of business is the sum of compensation which a business-doer has to incur as expenditure for paying damages in case of non-fulfilment of certain obligations under a contract. Now, the major question is whether such an expenditure can be treated as wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business as mandated by the provision of the Sec 37(1) of the Income Tax Act?
One Vivek Bansal, Liberty House, Karnal had originally purchased deep discount bonds 1997 of Industrial Development Bank of India (I.D.B.I) @ of Rs. 5500/- each (the original purchaser). From him the assessee-respondent purchased those bonds @ Rs.9700/- each on 01.01.2001 for total value of Rs.19,40,000/ – (the assessee secondary purchaser). The original purchaser filed his return for the assessment year 2001-02 and reflected the difference in amount of purchase and the sale. Thus, a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/- became long term capital gain in respect of the original assessee. It is undisputed that the bonds were subject to accruing of interest year to year although, no income was received annually by the bond holder. The condition was modified by issuance of a press note later. The assessee-secondary purchaser received a draft of Rs. 19,08,200/-. This amount has been accounted for by the assessee-secondary purchaser.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that as per the Payment of Bonus Act, if a workman had worked for 30 days in a relevant period, he was eligible for a pro rata bonus. Therefore,once the management was ready to pay bonus as per the law for the period 1991-92 (and it had so notified), it could not refuse to pay ex-gratia amount to workers.
TILL a few months back, it used to be a rare event in which the Delhi High Court used to impose costs on the Income Tax Department. And this is what perhaps encouraged the Revenue to keep filing appeals indiscriminately and virtually in all cases. But such a cosy run has evidently run out of luck now. So much exasperated is the High Court over the Department’s thick-skinned approach to curb frivolous appeals that it can now be seen imposing costs in most of the cases. And it happened even in this case where the issue revolves around allowance of bad debts and stock damages. While computing book profits u/s 115JA, the AO added back the provisions of doubtful debts and stock damages as he felt that such provisions cannot be categorised as ascertained liabilities in advance.
