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...
Hon’ble HC held that an entity which falls within the definition of the micro/small enterprise will be treated as a ‘supplier’ under Section 2(n) of the MSMED Act even if it has not filed a Memorandum as required under Section 8(1) of the MSMED Act.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax (Karnataka High Court) The ‘Residential Complex’ in question was undertaken to be constructed by the Respondent Assessee M/s. Nithesh Estates Limited for ITC Limited under the Contract dated 01/04/2006. It is equally undisputed before us that the construction activity in question was in its entirety […]
Sakeel Father /o Shri Wali Mohammad Vs State Tax Officer (Rajasthan High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT 1. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 129 of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax, 2017. However, […]
M/s. Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) Sub-clause (va) of Section 36(1) takes care of the employee’s contribution, which stands unaffected by Section 43B as the restriction available in Section 43B is already available under the Explanation to the said clause, with a qualification of the payment being before the […]
a) The respondents State is directed to accept the return of income for the Assessment Year 201819 by the petitioners herein if uploaded on or before 30th June, 2018 without Aadhar number, Aadhar Enrollment or any linkage with the PAN details.
M/s. Agasthiya Holdings Private Limited Vs CIT (Madras High Court) In Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Gangadhar Viswanath Ranade (Decd.,) reported in AIR 1999 SC 427, the scope of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 11 of the Second Schedule came up for consideration. The question arose for consideration before the Honourable Supreme […]
Respondent assessee is a private limited company. The business premises of the company was subjected to survey operation under section 133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short). During the survey operation, the Revenue claimed to have seized and impounded a diary which allegedly reveal certain cash transactions with respect to sell of Vatva land. Statement of the directors of the company were also recorded.
Naga Distributors Vs. UOI & Ors. (Kerala High Court) High Court held that If the uploading of FORM GST TRAN-1 is not possible for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the authority will also enable him to take credit of the input tax available at the time of migration. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT […]
If the petitioner applies within two weeks after receiving this judgment, the Nodal Officer will consider and take steps within a week thereafter. If the uploading of FORM GST TRAN-1 is not possible for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the authority will also enable him to take credit of the input tax available at the time of migration.
Dept. t explanation for cancellation of e-suvidha declaration. Appellant replied that the goods being transported were Auto three wheelers fitted with BS III Engines and because sale thereof were prohibited by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the goods which were being transported stood reduced to scrap and were not marketable, those were to be returned to be consigner. T
