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 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 Allahabad High Court held that Magistrates and police officers may be personally liable for compensation where unlawful preven...
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 Telangana High Court dealt with the legality of issuing multiple show cause notices for the same tax period without adjudicati...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue was whether a GST appeal filed within limitation could be dismissed merely because the mandatory pre-deposit was not mad...
Goods and Services Tax : The issue was whether a taxpayer could pursue a statutory appeal after approaching the High Court against a GST demand order and s...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9 attracts late fee under Section 47(2) of the CGST...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court held that healthcare services remain exempt even when delivered through another hospital under a revenue-sharing ar...
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...
A bare look at section 80-IB(4) would reveal that reference made to ‘profits and gains derived from such industrial undertakings’ and not to ‘profit and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking’. A conjoint reading of Section 80-IB(l) and 80-IB(4) would reveal that the expression ‘profits and gains derived from any business’ is to be read as ‘profits and gains derived from the industrial undertaking’
In the present case, the records reveal that the assessee was specifically queried regarding the nature and character of the one-time regulatory fee paid by it as well as the bank and stamp duty charges. A detailed explanation in the form of statements and other documents required of by the Assessing Officer were produced at the stage of original assessment.
Letting out of the plant, machinery or furniture and the premises constituted a single, composite and inseparable letting is based on the tests laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Bros. (P.) Ltd. (supra).
A reading of the provision of section 37(3A) to (3D) indicates that where the expenditure or as the case may be, the aggregate expenditure incurred by an assessee on any one or more of the following; i.e. (i) advertisement, publicity, sales promotion (ii) running and maintenance of air craft and motor cars and (iii) payments made to hotels exceeds Rs. 1 lakh 20 per cent of such excess shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’.
In view of this circumstance, that the assessing officer chose to treat the income under some other head cannot characterize the particulars or reported in the return as an inaccurate particulars or as suppression of facts.
Whether the provisions of section 40A can be applied, in case the section 40(b) had already been applied – Whether when the partnership deed is complete with regard to all the details regarding remuneration and salary etc, disallowance can be made on the basis that it was excessive – Whether remuneration to partners should be allowed u/s 40(b)(v) only on the basis of declaration made in the partnership deed.
The assessee holds a VSAT license to establish, maintain and operate closed users group, an Internet license to establish, maintain and operate internet services and a license/permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for providing uplinking services.
The Tribunal overlooked the fact that though the property dealer filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer, but owner of the property did not respond to the summons issued by the Assessing Officer. There is no plausible explanation from the assessee why the documents relating to the property were found in his residence if he had nothing to do with it.
Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the assessment order for AY 1998-99 was conclusive on the issue of date of commencement of the assessee’s business for the purpose of determining its tax liability.
Assessing Officer in the present case, it is difficult to say that the Assessing Officer erroneously assumed jurisdiction to reopen the petitioner’s assessment. The source of the complaint or the tax evasion petition is not relevant; it is the substance of the contents of the tax evasion petition which has to be examined
