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 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 Jharkhand High Court held that a marriage marked by 36 years of separation had become a "dead wood marriage," justifying disso...
Corporate Law : The Jharkhand High Court ruled that filing of a challan or charge-sheet alone is not a valid ground to reject anticipatory bail. C...
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 held that an order under Section 74 cannot be passed when the notice was issued under Section 73. The matter...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court restored GST registration subject to payment of outstanding GST dues, interest, late fees and penalty within pre...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that repeated summons under Section 70 cannot continue once the inquiry purpose is satisfied and sufficient materia...
Income Tax : The High Court held that the assessment was time-barred as it was not completed within the mandatory period under Section 144C....
Service Tax : The Court held that the availability of a statutory appeal barred interference in writ jurisdiction. It ruled that no exceptional ...
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...
Before penalizing the assessee by making him pay interest, the principles of natural justice ought to be complied with before making a demand for interest under sub section (1) of Section 50 of the GST Act. Consequence of demanding interest and non-payment thereof is very drastic.
It was held that whether the purchases were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus was essentially a question of fact. When the Tribunal had concluded that the assessee did make the purchase, as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered by such purchase but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax.
Sunita Palta & Ors. Vs. Kit Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Non-Executive Directors are, therefore, persons who are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the running of the company and are not in charge of and not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.’ Admittedly, the petitioners are neither the […]
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of […]
The Petitioner relied upon Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and submitted that the Respondent should examine the trademark applications in an efficient and proper manner in order to ensure that none of the marks which are brought before the Respondent are similar to that which are already registered and not clear for advertisement.
Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Budgetary Support Scheme – Plea of Promissory Estoppel not enforceable Facts – Petition filed against the Budgetary Support Scheme. Case of the Petitioner is that the erstwhile area based exemptions got rescinded with the introduction of the GST Regime w.e.f. 1.7.2017. Though Budgetary Support Scheme […]
Since there was absolutely no material that Revenue had failed in strictly adhering the limitation period under Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 and it was not the Revenue, who kept the file, without passing the final order under Regulation 20(7) within the 90 days limitation period and it had been kept pending only at the instance of the Respondent/Licensee, therefore, the matter was remitted back to CESTAT for fresh consideration only on the merits of the issue, not on the ground or point on limitation under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013.
Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Chapter 5 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020 makes provision for the EPCG Scheme, which is an incentive scheme. The incentive given is that the importer holding a valid authorisation for capital goods covered under the EPCG Scheme would be exempted from payment of […]
PCIT Vs Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Madras High Court) Employee’s contribution should be paid within the due date as provided in the related statutes to be allowed as deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Merchem Ltd. [reported in (2015) 378 ITR […]
In view of the foregoing, the documentary material shown to us by the Respondent leads to the conclusion that the land in question would be categorized as a capital asset. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption to agricultural land and hence, the compensation received by the assessee in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings, is subject to tax and the refund has been rightly rejected,
