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 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 article traces Justice Tejas Karia's journey from an arbitration specialist to a Delhi High Court judge while highlighting his...
Goods and Services Tax : The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a GST order passed without considering the assessee's reply and without recording reas...
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 : The High Court held that failure to pass the order giving effect within the time prescribed under Section 153 resulted in abatemen...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that unexplained trade credits falling under Section 68 cannot qualify for deduction under Section 80-I...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that GST proceedings under Section 74 were not time-barred after considering the COVID-19 limitation ex...
Corporate Law : The High Court held that once an NCLT-approved resolution plan comes into effect, claims not included in the plan stand extinguish...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that an assessment relying on a seized document and its author's statement cannot be sustained without p...
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...
Background In the pre-GST period, the advance authorization license allowed an exporter to import raw materials used for manufacturing exported goods without payment of taxes on import of raw material used for past exports. Subsequently, the scheme was amended to allow exemption from IGST as well as compensation cess by issuing Notification No.79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017. […]
The facts of the case reveal that the Assessee-University conducts examinations through various colleges affiliated to it. The affiliated colleges function as the examination centre. These affiliated colleges/centres in holding the examinations incur various types of expenditure both administrative and procedural. The Assessee-University reimburse these expenses to the affiliated colleges/centres.
CIT Vs Gundecha Builders (Bombay High Court) In the present facts it is undisputed that the respondent assessee is in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property is not the business of the respondent assessee. Rental income received from unsold portion of the property constructed by real estate developer is […]
M/s. Madhucon Granites Ltd. Vs CIT (Appeals) (Madras High Court) Thereis no dispute to the fact that the Order-in-Original passed against the petitioner dated 27.04.2017 has indicated that an appeal shall lie before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. Therefore, I find justifiable reasons to believe that the petitioner would have approached the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai, in […]
Principal CIT Vs Smt. Charumathi Seshadri (Madras High Court) When assessee invested a sum in purchase of land, which was invested after date of sale of original asset and before due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) as per requirement of section 54F, then, deduction under section 54F could not be […]
Mr. Jairam Ramesh Vs Union of India and Ors (Delhi High Court) There is no dispute that the petitioner herein is a Member of Rajya Sabha. The plea of Mr. Chidambram that the petitioner was not aware that such amendments have been carried out as Money Bills, is no reason to challenge the amendments, at […]
Respondent CIT/PCIT directed to refund the entire amount of income tax they have recovered, which was an exempted amount and which the petitioner Army Officer has paid in respect of his disability pension.
The court ordered the refund due for AY 1993-94 and 1995-96 to be granted to the assessee along with appropriate interest and also ordered a sum of INR 1.50 Lakhs to be paid to the assessee on account of inefficiency and lapse on the part of the department.
Sandeep Goyal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in Criminal Complaint No.35/2018 for offence under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(d)(f)(i) & (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 132(1), (i) & (iv) of Central Goods […]
Reassessment made by AO was valid as assessee was unable to explain the source of income from which investments had been made by furnishing her bank statements and AO clearly had reason to believe that income of assessee with reference to these three investments had escaped assessment.
