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...
When its book profit was nil on the last date of the financial year then the assessee had no liability to pay advance tax and therefore, interest u/s 234B and section 234C of the Act will not be charged
The provision contained in section 138 of the N.I. Act makes it clear that it is not every return of a cheque unpaid which leads to prosecution of an offence under the said provision of law.
When postal authorities collected notice from revenue on 31-3-2015 (last date of expiry of six years from end of relevant assessment year) as per arrangement between revenue and postal department, though such notice was served to assessee later, such notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was not barred by limitation.
It was observed that the assessee company is owned by Mr. Karan Johar and RCEPL is owned by Mr.Shahrukh Khan. Both are known personalities of Indian film industry. The authorities have not disputed the fact of providing services by Mr.Shahrukh Khan in the production and marketing of the film `Kaal’. The film was released under […]
Official Liquidator (OL) could file claim within a period of four years from the date of winding up order, by taking the benefit of one year period immediately following the date of the winding up order, as provided under section 458A of the Act and the three years period provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sale of tobacco would not attract the provisions of the enactment. He further submits that as per Rule 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations Act, 2011, tobacco shall not be used as ingredients in […]
The matter is called out for final hearing as the matter is specifically listed for final hearing in summer vacation. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State. 2. The Petitioner which is a private limited company holding FL II license and carrying on business of selling liquor […]
Before rejecting the C-Forms as containing discrepancies, the revisional authority should have returned the C-Forms and given an opportunity to the dealer to rectify the defects.
Where properties attached by Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) had already been subjected to recovery proceedings by a secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the attachment order was quashed in view of section 35 of SARFAESI Act which makes it clear that the Act would override other laws and would have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.
The mere fact that the Assessing Officer was busy in other time- bearing assessments can hardly be an excuse, particularly given the fact that under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the time period for filing of an appeal is 120 days. No other statute prescribes the time period of over three months. Moreover, there is no explanation for every day’s delay. A delay of 335 days cannot be said to be routine.
