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 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...
Corporate Law : An accused could not be kept in jail indefinitely in a money laundering case when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reas...
Service Tax : Non-maintenance of minimum balance by customers did not generate taxable consideration and, therefore, no service tax/GST, interes...
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...
There has been constant reopening of assessments by Assessing Authorities on mere change of opinion while law is well settled on the point that an assessment cannot reopened by recourse to section 147/ 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer(AO).
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Deepak Malhotra vs Deepti Malhotra and Ors, has held that the proportion of the husband’s income to be awarded as maintenance pendente lite to the wife is dependent on the surrounding circumstances and cannot be determined by a strict mathematical formula.
A perusal of the common order of the ITAT shows that it first dealt with one common ground raised by the Assessee in all its appeals which concerned the jurisdictional issue of the validity of the invocation of Section 153A of the Act by the Revenue. It was contended that for the AYs 2000- 01 […]
There is, therefore, nothing to contradict the categorical finding of the ITAT that the document which formed the main basis for initiation of the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act does not belong to the Assessee. One of the principal conditions for attracting Section 153C of the Act is, therefore, not fulfilled in the present case.
The AO examined the nature of the transactions involving the Assessee and the payments received therefor. The reopening was not based on any fresh material. By revisiting the same materials the successor AO now concluded that the payments received by the Assessee pursuant to the O&M Agreements should be treated as FTS.
The law in relation to searches under Section 132 of the Act has been explained in a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The jurisdictional facts that have to be established before a search under Section 132 (1) of the Act can be authorized are that (i) the authority issuing the authorization is in possession of some credible information, other than surmises and conjectures (ii) that the authority has reason to believe that the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 132 (1) qua the person searched exist; and (iii) the said information has nexus to such belief.
They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts may be noted from Special Civil Application No. 2548 of 2016.
Under section 145 of the Act, rejection of books of accounts is pre-requisite, where books of accounts have been maintained by the assessee, for making additions by the AO on account of estimation of profit.
The Court is not satisfied that the retraction made by the Assessee two years after the declaration was bonafide. There was no satisfactory explanation for not including the said amount in the return of income filed by the Assessee on 26th September, 2009.
The division bench of Delhi High Court, in UOI v. Padmini Polymers Ltd & Anr, held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has no jurisdiction to file Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Settlement Commission.
