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 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 Madhya Pradesh High Court closed the defamation proceedings after the applicant expressed regret for an erroneous statement an...
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...
Custom Duty : Gauhati High Court upheld Customs' seizure of areca nuts, holding that objective circumstances established the statutory reason to...
Income Tax : Bombay HC admitted the Revenue's appeal on AMP expenditure and payments to doctors, holding both require judicial examination. It ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that Section 74 cannot be invoked without allowing the assessee to produce evidence establishing genuin...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment on seigniorage fees after finding that the taxpayer's reply was ignored. It remande...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court held that notifications under Sections 9 and 11 of the CGST Act cannot exceed GST Council recommendations. Unsup...
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...
The issue in these writ petitions is whether multi-function devices (MFDs) are covered under the term ‘printers’. This dispute has arisen in view of the document Annexure P-12 by a clarification which was issued by way of Circular No.1 of 2019 dated 2.5.2019 as per which it was ‘clarified’ that multi-function devices which are basically printers with additional features like photocopy, scan, fax etc. are covered within the ambit of ‘printers’.
GST dept to permit the Assessee to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019. The Respondents are at liberty to verify genuineness of claim of Petitioners but nobody shall be denied to carry forward legitimate claim of CENVAT/ITC on the ground of non-filing of TRAN-I by 27.12.2017.
On analysing section 164(2) it was concluded that the same operates prospectively and a director would not demit office in terms of Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 on account of a disqualification incurred under Section 164(2) for conduct prior to the amendments to the Act introduced from May 7, 2018. Moreover, Central government had no power to cancel or deactivate the Director Identification Number (DIN) on account of a director suffering a disqualification under Section 164(2).
Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) We notice that during the original assessment as well as the remand proceedings, the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the share investors which the assessee failed to do. The Assessing Officer thereupon issued the summons to the share purchasers calling upon them to […]
This Court has taken suo motu cognizance of incident of police firing as well as lathicharge by the police upon Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi.
If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order passed by an officer subordinate to him.
Kerala High Court ruling on E-way Bill, goods detention. AMM Aquapure Systems Vs Asstt. STO case details. Read the full judgment.
The Assessing Officer thus concluded that there was no nexus between the higher education expense of Ms. Esha Arya and the business of the assessee and accordingly disallowed the entire sum holding that it was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.
Bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a ‘disputed transaction’. The bank can recover from the customers only when it can unequivocally prove that the customer was responsible for such transaction, independently through the civil court. The RBI guidelines is a clear mandate to exonerate a customer in such ‘disputed transaction’.
The moot question, according to learned counsel for writ petitioner is, the transporter cannot be proceeded against even if the allegations against the owner of the goods i.e., dealer under TNGST Act, are true.
