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.
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 Allahabad High Court ruled that ordinary land disputes involving allegations of cheating cannot attract the Gangsters Act with...
Goods and Services Tax : The debate examines why GST penalties under Section 122(1A) may survive a direct challenge under Article 20(2). The key takeaway i...
Corporate Law : The Court directed trial courts to award just and reasonable compensation to survivors irrespective of conviction, acquittal, or a...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that recovery from third parties cannot be initiated when only a proposed demand exists and no final tax liability ...
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, for assessment year 2009-10, filing the audit report along with the return was directory and not mandatory. D...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court held that the issue requires consideration where the show cause notice preceded the amendment. It granted interim r...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue involved rejection of a delayed revocation application for cancelled GST registration. The Telangana High Court held tha...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue involved delay in disposal of a rectification application filed against a GST order. The Telangana High Court directed t...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue was whether a taxpayer could directly invoke writ jurisdiction claiming that a GST show cause notice and order were mere...
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...
Recently, in case of YUM RESTAURANTS (I) PVT.LTD AND Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, Hon’ble Delhi High Court pronounced that there is no provision in the Foreign Trade Policy which debars an Indian subsidiary of a foreign holding company from availing the benefit of Serve From India Scheme(SFIS).
In the instant case, B. Saravanan (Contractor) [the Petitioner] was a registered dealer under provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (the Tamil Nadu VAT Act). The Department passed an Order cancelling the Petitioner’s Registration Certificate with retrospective effect (the Impugned Order).
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras after observing that there was no audit initiated/ conducted against the Petitioner or in business premises of the Petitioner, held that: Audit of service recipient, SIPL is not relevant and the Petitioner was never put to notice before March 1, 2013;
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd., it was held that prior to year 2006, the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT credit Rules would be applicable. On plain reading of the said explanation, as it is not disputed that the respondents are paying service tax
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner society is running an educational institution. Merely because there are other objects of the society does not mean that the educational institution is not existing solely for educational purpose.
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the date of presentation of cheque in the bank is to be reckoned as the date of payment of advance tax and not the date on which the cheque is cleared and entered in the receipt roll as required under Rule 20 of the Central Government Account (Receipts and Payments) Rules 1983
The question which is posed for consideration is whether for considering the long term capital gain Cost Inflation Index is required to be considered at the date on which the property was inherited in the name of the assessee or as per the previous cost of acquisition at which previous owner had acquired the capital asset.
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that depreciation not claimed for by the assessee, cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block assets. Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once the depreciation is option, applying the same ratio of Gujarat High Court and other Courts, it will be optional for block of assets also.
It is not disputed that tax was deducted at source by the tenant Union Motors Services Limited and they have issued some Certificates which has been given credit to by the Department. The present dispute relates to the failure of non issuance of TDS certificates by the tenant.
When there is no provision for filing a Second Application, the question of limitation does not arise. Further, the time limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act is for the First Application and the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and therefore there can be no limitation in respect of the proceedings pursuing the refund claim.
