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 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 Karnataka High Court held that projects obtaining partial occupancy certificates before RERA came into force are exempt from b...
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 Kerala High Court held that a composite show cause notice issued for multiple assessment years was legally unsustainable. The ...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that import restrictions could not apply to consignments that had arrived before the relevant notificati...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala High Court held that issuing one show cause notice for multiple financial years is not legally sustainable. While quash...
Custom Duty : The High Court held that prolonged custody and anticipated delay in trial cannot independently justify bail in cases involving com...
Custom Duty : The Delhi High Court discharged contempt proceedings after the petitioner tendered an unconditional apology and undertook not to r...
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...
key issue is whether the ownership of an industrial undertaking is a relevant factor for the purposes of construing the provisions of Section 80-I of the said Act. We find ourselves to be in agreement with the submission made by Mr Ganesh that Section 80-I does not speak of the ownership of an industrial undertaking.
Assessee as an honest citizen not only made a complaint to the registering authority that the sale deed has been registered at a value much below the amount, which he has actually received, he deposited the entire amount in the bank and voluntarily filed return.
In the said case, the respondent was a publisher of books but did not have a printing press. He would procure manuscripts, hit upon a suitable format, get it printed from third parties under his supervision, get the book bound and put it out for sale.
The Assessing Officer had noticed that grant of Rs.35 crores was sanctioned by the Government in the said year to improve air connectivity in North-Eastern Region. The respondent-assessee had taken on lease four ATR-42-320 aircrafts for five years from Ms/ Aviande Transport Regional
Company, whose Audit Report is stated to have been prepared by respondent No.1 contrary to the prescribed norms, has not made any complaint against respondent No.1. One of the Directors of the Company, namely, Vipan Gupta, appeared before the Disciplinary Committee as a witness but he did not state a word about the aforesaid Audit Report.
Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a company engaged in manufacture of hosiery goods at Ludhiana.
While Bombay HC has refused to grant bail application pending payment of Service tax for service tax evasion for the period starting before 10.05.2013 in the case of Kandra Rameshbabu Naidu but on the other hand Kolkutta High Court in the case of Sudip Das granted to bail to accused who had been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.
This is a case before the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Authority of Advanced Ruling. The AAR held the petitioner to be an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The important question that has got to be considered is from which date are the expenses of this business to be considered permissible deductions and for that purpose the section that we have got to look to is section 2(11) and that section defines the „previous year‟
The assessment in the instant case was re-opened on the ground that the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had reversed the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for AY 2005-06 whereby the Special Bench held that the commission of Rs.1 .20 crores to the three Directors was in lieu of dividend and the same was not allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii).
