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...
This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal for short) dated 26.9.2001. Appeal was admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law.
This Tax Appeal is filed challenging the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.08.2006. The Tax Appeal has been taken up for consideration of following substantial questions of law: [A] “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of […]
(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issuance of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges the order date 23.4.2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 1995- 96.
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the assessment for A.Y 2008-2009 is sought to be reopen beyond the period of six years, solely on the directions issued by the learned CIT [A], which has been subsequently set-aside by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that otherwise, the re-assessment proceedings beyond six years is not permissible.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has in the case of Hariom Steels Pvt Ltd has held that penalty cannot be levied when deeming provisions are applied for assessing income.
Extract of Reply Submitted by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi High Court in which he stated that he never asked senior advocate Mr. Ram Jethmalani to pose objectionable questions to Mr. Arun Jaitley or use objectionable words while recording of evidence in the Rs. 10-crore defamation suit initiated by Mr. Arun Jaitley.
On Further hearing in the case of J K Mittal & Company Vs. Union Of India & Ors. on 18th July 2017, Delhi High Court has held that till further orders, all legal services provided by advocates, law firms of advocates, or LLPs of advocates will be continued to be governed by the reverse charge […]
Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of exemption of sales tax payments was not a trading receipt but was a capital receipt, hence not liable to tax?
The Department further initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on ground that the assessee failed to offer explanation for making such a claim. It was noted that once the claim was rejected the onus was on the assessee to dislodge the revertible presumption of the claim of concealment of income. However, the tribunal deleted penalty by holding that merely because the claim is not accepted would not give rise to penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a legal claim in a transparent manner. Whether such a claim is acceptable or not, is altogether a different matter, it said.
