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...
In the present case we find that the petitioner had changed his registered office w.e.f. 4th November, 1989 from first floor and 6376 Naya Bans Delhi to Y-192, Loha Mandi, Naraina, New Delhi, and thereafter w.ef. 3rd October, 2000 from Y-92 Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi to Room No.9, Y-3C, Loha Mandi, Naraina, Delhi. The principal place of business is at Agra, where he has a floor mill.
Rule 2BA is in the form of guidelines for the purpose of section 10(10C), which relates to taxation of income/amount received by an employee under VRS scheme. The said rule does not deal with the expenditure incurred by the employer when the assessee makes payment under the VRS scheme formulated by them.
It is stated by them that insofar as the revamping the system and giving better assistance to the court is concerned, all necessary action as they would take has been taken. We would thus naturally expect that now there would no lack of proper assistance to the court.
The petitioner who was serving as the Secretary of the Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Avinashi was charged with offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13( 1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The assessee had wrongly taken the benefit of Section 80IA on the gross total income by reducing the loss of Unit-II from Unit-I and thereby declaring the return at Nil and carried forward the loss of Rs. 23,94,827/-, which was not permissible.
Given the fact that the Settlement Commission order was made on 11.6.2002 and as on the date of insertion to Explanation 1(iv) with effect from 1.6.2002 the applications were pending before the Settlement Commission, we have no hesitation in rejecting the assessees’ contention that the Explanation should not be given retrospective effect.
Section 271(1)(c) empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalties wherever the assessee does not furnish accurate particulars, in the form of returns, such as concealing the sources of income, or withholding true and full information. This duty was spelt out by the Supreme Court as one cast on the assessee to disclose all facts, including every potential income.
Having regard to the facts noted above as well as explanation adduced by the assessee in respect of the payments and the suspicious approach of the DGIT(E) towards the evidence adduced by the assessee without noticing the crucial facts such as payment by cheques etc., it seems that the DGIT(E) was not justified in law in readily inferring that assessee manipulated and fabricated its books of account and vouchers and also debited personal, bogus and exaggerated expenses.
During the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal the revenue contended that the borrowings on which the interest has been claimed as a deduction are in fact capital of the assessee and brought only under the nomenclature of loan for tax consideration. It was the case of the appellant-revenue before the Tribunal that debt capital is required to be re-characterized as equity capital.
In the present case, therefore, the fact that the assessee had completed the construction well before 31st March, 2008 is not in doubt. It is, of course, true that formally BU permission was not granted by the Municipal Authority by such date. It is equally true that explanation to clause (a) to section 80-IB(10) links the completion of the construction to the BU permission being granted by the local authority.
