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 Court rejected the challenge to the search conducted under Section 132 and upheld the legality of the search proceedings. It, ...
Corporate Law : The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatu...
Corporate Law : The Madras High Court held that although execution of the promissory note was admitted, the plaintiff failed to prove that conside...
DGFT : The Rajasthan High Court held that policy decisions relating to the Foreign Trade Policy and the Hand Book of Procedure cannot be ...
Corporate Law : The Allahabad High Court held that a bona fide typographical error in the date of birth could be corrected since it did not confer...
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...
Petitioner Shri Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka and Neeraj Jain were arrested on 12.05.2018 due to their involvement in the business of generating and selling of fake tax invoices to various entities without supplying the underlying goods or services, thereby facilitating irregular availment and utilization of input tax credit by such entities to whom such fake invoices were issued.
Petitioners had ceased to be the Directors of the Company, as stated by them, on 8thApril, 2011 and that they could not have been penalized for the failure of the company to effect statutory compliances.
CIT Vs M/s. L & T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) In none of these orders there is any whisper of the alleged particulars of income which has been concealed or what particulars of income which have been filed is inaccurate. Mere using the words that there has concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate […]
This intra-court appeal is directed against an order dated 28.08.2017, wherein and whereby a learned single Judge of this Court had dismissed a writ petition in which a notice dated 16.08.2017, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961, was assailed. To be noted, order of the learned single Judge is a common order in two writ petitions, but this judgment deals with the order in W.P.No.22978 of 2017 alone.
In the present case, the Commissioner does not speak of absence of a written constitution. The appellant also asserts that the constitution of the Generalate regulates the Houses also, which come under the Generalate. The Tribunal also found that the appellant comes under the exclusive control of the Generalate through the hierarchies as disclosed from the constitution and there could be no separate registration granted to the Convent.
HC held that Before parting, we have to note that we have come across series of orders passed by the same Assistant Commissioner wherein reassessment proceedings are initiated after the period of four years and the reasons supplied and the actions taken are not in consonance with the settled law. We request the learned Standing Counsel to supply compilation of the above referred judgments to the concerned Commissioner.
Personal information like T.A. bill etc. cannot be directed to be given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in view of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act.
CIT Vs M/s Sudev industries limited (Delhi High Court) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that service of notice at the factory premises of the Assessee on the security guard was not proper service under the provisions of Section 282(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Section 282 of […]
M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Commercial Tax of MP & others (Madhya Pradesh High Court) In the present case, the distance was more than 1200-1300 kilometers and it is mandatory for the petitioner to file the Part-B of the e-way bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods […]
Only a land in which the building is completely constructed stands excluded under the exclusionary provision under Explanation (1 )(b)(ii) of Section 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957
