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 Court held that the assessment and consequential demand could not stand where the petitioner had not participated in the proce...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court upheld GST demands after finding that higher seigniorage fees and lower outward supply declarations provided...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that sufficient cause for delay may be explained in the memorandum of appeal itself. It ruled that an ...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that ESOP expenditure cannot be disallowed merely because shares were allotted instead of purchased from...
Goods and Services Tax : The Telangana High Court held that a show cause notice merely reproducing Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act without disclosing fact...
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...
Unfortunately undervaluing of immovable properties so as to either pay less stamp duty or for other reasons of concealment of income etc, is ripe in this country, however, the appellant/plaintiff cannot take any benefit of the same in view of the provision of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and which specifies that inadequacy of consideration is not a ground for cancelling of a contract. In any case, it is very much possible that the declared consideration need not have been the actual consideration, and which of course this Court does not deal with or is not concerned with in view of the categorical provision of Explanation II to Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act.
Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prescribes penalty according to its provisions when an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax.
In view of Companies Act, 1956 being a special statute and upon considering the language of section 10-F, in my view it is clear that the Company Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of 60 days.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 129 E of the Indian Customs Act, 1962, that makes pre- deposit mandatory for filing an appeal before the tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) concerned.
The present matter has brought forth the problems faced by citizens in free access to accurate and comprehensive sets of laws in India. The availability of accurate legal texts, at minimal cost, is fundamental to the rule of law and a basic responsibility of the Government. With the advent of the internet, it is imperative that the Government make all efforts possible to provide comprehensive access to legislations and subordinate legislations online. While efforts have been made in this arena, a lot remains to be done.
In a recent ruling, the division bench of the Bombay High Court held that the assessee cannot claim that the sale of attached property is time-barred under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule, where he has applied to Settlement Commission for extension of time for payment of demand as per Order of Settlement and his application is pending and writes to TRO for putting sale on hold based on such application.
Thus, it appears that only on the basis of the valuation report received from the said officer – Assistant Valuation Officer, the assessing authority sought to reopen the proceeding under Section 147 of the Act, 1961 which is clearly not an information for reopening the assessment proceeding
The issue is one, namely, whether the assessee was entitled to claim benefit of section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 with respect to Government grant of Rs. 8.97 crores received during the assessment year in question.
The Bombay High Court has restrained Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF), which markets ice cream under brand name Amul, from broadcasting two television advertisements as they were disparaging towards plaintiff’s product, Kwality Walls.
A finding of fact made by the Settlement Commission is not open to judicial review unless it is established that, such finding of fact suffers from perversity or is vitiated due to bias or malice. None of the grounds known to law to upset a finding of fact returned by a Settlement Commission has been substantiated in the facts of the present case.
