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 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 : Madras HC held morphed obscene images are a serious attack on a woman's privacy and dignity. It directed prompt police action and ...
Corporate Law : The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the acquittal after finding the relationship was consensual. A later refusal to marry did not e...
Corporate Law : The Patna High Court held that media must avoid labels implying guilt before a trial concludes. It directed news platforms to rest...
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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment order issued nearly four years after the assessee's death. It held that proceedings...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that non-compliance with Section 144B raised a jurisdictional issue requiring ITAT adjudication and set asi...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court ruled that CBDT's expert assessment of informant rewards is not open to judicial recalculation absent arbitrari...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that a scientifically determined warranty provision qualified for consideration under settled legal pr...
Service Tax : Gujarat High Court held SVLDRS relief unavailable as service tax was not quantified before 30 June 2019. Partial admission during ...
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...
Jsk Marketing Limited & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) A conjoint reading of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 70 & 174 of the CGST Act show that though the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act, 1994 to […]
Dilip Babulal Jain Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with Case No.CBIC-DIN-20200665VB00002SBJ10 registered under Sections 132(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the CGST Act. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the […]
Proposal to levy penalty on the ground that assessee- dealer purchased SAP software at concessional rate of tax against C Form Declarations without having included the same in the registration certificate issued under the CST Act was made by an officer, who was not the officer, who passed the order dated 30.1.2014, as there had been a transfer of the officer and the new officer took over charge thus, the defect, which had occurred by levying penalty without affording an opportunity of personal hearing would go to the root of the very levy itself, therefore, the assessment orders was remanded to AO for a fresh consideration.
We would not have asked the officers to join the video conference but for the serious allegations which have been levelled in the respective writ applications. We do not intend to discourage or lower down the morale of all the officers before us. Our endeavour is only to bring it to their notice that they should act and perform their duties within the four corners of law.
Muhammed Shafi P. Vs NIA (Kerala High Court) Undisputed facts are as follows:NIA registered the above mentioned case alleging offences punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UA(P) Act”, in short). Accused persons were arrested by NIA on different dates and they have been confined to custody for […]
Loyalty Solutions And Research Private Limited Vs Union Of India And Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) The Designated Committee constituted under Amnesty Scheme vide impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (P-19) rejected declaration filed with respect to appeal pending before Tribunal on the ground that petitioner has filed single declaration with respect to four show cause […]
CIT Vs Y. V. Subramaniam (Madras High Court) On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has categorically held that the order passed by CIT is based on no reason and he has simply given an abrupt finding that the assessment order is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal, […]
Amount deposited during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be construed as having paid under protest and has to be refunded without insisting on such importer or manufacturer satisfying the requirement of unjust enrichment as in the case of pre deposit.
We may mention that demat accounts of the petitioners have been frozen for non-payment of annual listing fee which has been quantified at Rs.14,16,000/- for the period from 2015-16 to 2019-20. Against the freezing of demat accounts, petitioners preferred appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal.
Sabareesh Pallikere Vs Jurisdictional Designated Committee (Bombay High Court) In so far the present case is concerned, we may refer to the first statement of the petitioner recorded on 06.07.2018. In this statement, he categorically admitted that the total service tax liability of the petitioner for the period 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) would […]
