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.
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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court emphasized that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression and cannot ...
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...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of the Section 271D penalty, holding that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment or...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held Section 153C notices invalid as the satisfaction note was not recorded immediately after the searched perso...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding it could not challenge the ITAT's addition after not appealing the CIT(A...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court ruled that employers cannot grant Section 89 relief or refund TDS unless employees submit Form 10E under Sec...
Income Tax : Orissa High Court held that Covid-19 constituted genuine hardship, directed Form 10B to be treated as filed in time, and ordered r...
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...
Neeraj Karande Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Telangana High Court) In view of the above rival submissions, the allegations against the petitioner are that he has collected and issued invoices or bills without actual supply of goods in violation of the provisions of the CGST Act and the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful […]
United Processors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) It is brought to notice by the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent that the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil nadu -vs- Tex-in-Printers (Order dated 04.10.2013 in Tax Case (Revision) No. 49 of 2009) has reiterated that after introduction of Section […]
The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement Vs A. Raja & Ors (Delhi High Court) 1. The application Crl.M.A. 10885/2020 is filed by respondent No.17- M/s Conwood Construction & Developers (P) Ltd. and Crl.M.A. 12520/2020 is filed by respondent No.15- M/s Dynamix Realty. The applicants are seeking modification of the ex parte ad interim order dated […]
Summary of Orders related to IBC 2016 passed by IBBI, NCLT, NCLAT, HC & SC during July to September 2020 Orders by Supreme Court M/s Marathe Hospitality Vs. Mahesh Surekha & Ors. [SLP (C) No. 8139/2020] The petitioner filed an appeal before the NCLAT. However, the NCLAT closed its functioning as one of its employees […]
Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee Vs Internal Complaints Committe, Vivekananda College & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) A cursory glance at Section 2(m) of the posh 2013 Act shows that the term ‘respondent’ brings within its fold ‘a person’, thereby including persons of all genders. Although there is substance in the submission of the petitioner that the said […]
The present writ petitions have been filed challenging orders issued by respondent authority whereby the penalty demand of Rs.293,28,50,153 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 stayed subject to payment of 20% of the said amount.
Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st December 2020 to 10th January 2020 (Excluding Vacation) at 11.00 a.m to 1.30 p.m and 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.
HC has quashed a notice and blocking of input tax credit under rule 86A whereby the credit was blocked for more than one year. Rule 86A does not empower the department to block the credit for more than one year and they are bound to unblock it even if the assessment has not taken place or got completed within one year.
It would appear that, in the meanwhile, between the date of apprehending the goods at the parcel office and the date on which the order of detention was passed, the e-way bill had already been updated by filling the Part B thereof. This is evident from Ext.P6 that is produced along with the writ petition.
Bombay High Court held that, the commencement of adjudication proceedings after inordinate delay of 13 years post-issuance of Show Cause Notices is untenable in law and any consequential decision or order based on such adjudication proceeding is therefore, held to be invalid.
