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 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 Madras High Court restrained the proposed church construction near a century-old temple after finding a prima facie case and n...
Corporate Law : The Madras High Court upheld a man's conviction for killing an engineering student who chose to end their relationship. The Court ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that damages paid under an arbitral award do not qualify as consideration for a taxable service under GST. The ruli...
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 Gujarat High Court upheld the ITAT's decision restricting the addition on alleged bogus purchases to 6% instead of sustaining ...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation as the assessments were not completed wit...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court held that an assessment cannot survive where the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction failed to issue a m...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court held that adjusting admitted refunds to recover more than 20% of disputed tax demand during the pendency o...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court held that recovery exceeding 20% of the disputed tax demand during the pendency of an appeal before the CI...
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...
DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was also given that it reserves its right to carry forward the loss.
CIT Vs Bharati Vidyapeeth (Bombay High Court); The only argument is, namely, if the Revenue succeeds in the Appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal restoring assessee’s registration, then it may be open for the Revenue to tax its income and by holding that both Sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act have no application […]
These are 16 appeals by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 8 of them are quantum appeals and the remaining 8 are penalty appeals. As far as the quantum appeals are concerned, these are ITA Nos. 73, 75, 77, 78, 82, 86, 113 and 123 of 2005 which are directed against the common order dated 16-3-2004
The legal principle is that the person who hears must decide. Therefore, by applying the said principle to the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to send back the matter for fresh consideration before the first respondent, on the plea for waiver of interest under section 220(2) and rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961
CIT Vs Ut Starcom Inc. (India Branch) (Delhi High Court)- When we examine the profile of the assessee company vis-à-vis Infosys Technologies Limited in the light of the judgment in CIT vs. Agnity India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there is no comparability for benchmarking the international transactions for the reasons inter alia that Infosys Technologies […]
Depreciation was allowable @10% on public highway road treating the same as building. It was held assessee was granted license for construction against which it had right to use and collect license fee to use of the land. It had right to restrict the people without non payment of toll tax. It was not only road, they had to construct toll booth and provide facilities for the staff for the purpose of their accommodation.
Non-contest in the proceedings under Section 73 cannot be used as a ground or reason to establish and show that requirements of Section 78 are satisfied. The Tribunal after appreciating different aspects, including conduct of the respondent-Corporation has held that penalty should not be levied. The finding is a finding of fact.
Mere allotment of PAN under section 139A of the Act would not make the allottee necessarily a separate entity for the purpose of assessment of tax. The statute recognizes certain eventualities where quite outside the requirement of payment of tax and for filing return of income, the Assessing Officer may allot a PAN to individual.
As purchase of inventory is continuation of same business activity, the, proviso to section 36(1)(iii)(d) did not get attracted in case assessee having borrowed funds to purchase inventory, therefore, assessee was duly entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
HC held that Tribunal, out of sheer desperation and frustration and agitated by the fact that the Revenue is not opposing the request for condonation of delay, turned its attention towards the assessee’s Chartered Accountant.
