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...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court held that Rule 86A permits blocking only of input tax credit actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Ne...
Corporate Law : The Kerala High Court held that banks are not required to obtain approval from the Local Level Committee under the National Trust ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Rajasthan High Court directed taxpayers to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Appeals fi...
Corporate Law : The Calcutta High Court held that prepayment charges, commitment charges and processing fees formed part of the recoverable debt u...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of ITC under Rule 86A after finding that the Revenue had recorded adequate material supp...
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 present writ petitions have been filed by NDTV Ltd. (hereinafter, NDTV) against the notice proposing reassessment proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter, espondent or CIT or Revenue) under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, Act) and the order of provisional attachment of Petitioner’s assets under section 281B of the Act.
The purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, the seized documents had to be shown to belong to the other person and not merely pertaining to such other person. The change brought about in this regard in Section 153 C of the Act by way of amendment has been given prospective effect from 1st June 2015.
If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the on money received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation.
High Court held that (I) We hold that e-recharge is not covered by the Item No. 133 of the Government Notification dated 28th March 2013 and that in any event, LBT cannot be levied on erecharge; (II) We reject the contention of the petitioner that the LBT is not payable on the SIM cards and […]
Where material was found in course of search at third party assessee that assessee had claimed bogus expenditure of 1 crore, towards which assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs and for balance 50 lakhs, it failed to provide any evidence, then it was made clear that onus of showing that balance expenditure was justified, lay upon assessee. Since assessee failed to discharge onus, AO was justified in bringing to tax the said expenditure.
As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and as such in respect of the same assessee, but with respect to different assessment years, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
High Court held that Tribunal’s order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We are unhappy with the abbreviations […]
This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961) has arisen from judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench A, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 492/LKW/2016.
Though the name of the respondent assessee is distinct in each of these Appeals, it is agreed that the Revenue is proposing similar questions in all of them. These Appeals of the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and taking a view that the grounds raised are covered, in majority of the cases, by the earlier order of the Tribunal.
High Court held that The failure by the AO to adhere to the mandatory requirement of Section 144C (1) of the Act and first pass a draft assessment order would result in invalidation of the final assessment order and the consequent demand notices and penalty proceedings.
