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 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 High Court found that the appellate authority had failed to act on the Tribunal's direction requiring a speaking order for Ass...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that the tax authorities failed to examine the assessee's request to consider exemption under the corre...
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 Appeal pertains to Assessment year 200405. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that Tribunal was not justified in not accepting the reworking of the book profits by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass […]
The ITAT noted that document was silent as to payer and payee of amount in question nor does it disclose that payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that document is in handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures.
The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to correct the error in mentioning the Permanent Account Number (PAN for short) of one of the agencies to whom the petitioner had made multiple payments during the relevant financial period for which deduction of tax at source was necessary.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs.
In the present case there was no illegality committed by the Department in not issuing to the Assessee a notice under Section 226 (3) (iii) of the Act simultaneously with or prior to the notice issued to its bank under Section 226 (3) (i) of the Act for recovery of the tax demand from its account.
An addition cannot be made on the basis of a handwritten loose paper which does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee and if AO has not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the assessee. An addition cannot be made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork and without bringing corroborative material on record
The Court is not prepared to accept the plea of the Revenue that merely because a panchnama was drawn up on 15thMay, 2007 showing that the search was ‘finally concluded’ on that date, it postponed the period of limitation in terms of Section 153B (2) (a) of the Act.
The Tribunal considered the merits and once again, at great length. The particular argument revolving around the statement of Dilip Dherai and his answer to question No. 24 was also considered in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. Then, in paragraph 22, the Tribunal refers to the additions made under Section 69C.
Appellant contended that section 43D of the Act itself recognises recognition of taxability of such interest and that when a specific provision in the nature of section 43D of the Act has been made, and entities like the assessee are excluded from the purview thereof, the assessee cannot indirectly claim benefit which would amount to […]
