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...
Corporate Law : The High Court held that notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are an integral component of criminal investigation and cannot o...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala High Court set aside a consolidated notice issued for FY 2019-20 to 2024-25. It held that separate notices must be issu...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court granted interim protection after observing that proceedings under Section 73 appeared to nullify refund orders sanctione...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that partners who retained benefits from GST violations and acted behind such transactions can be pena...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court held that recovery proceedings under Section 226(3) cannot automatically extend to a daughter's bank acco...
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...
. Given the fact that the assessee had not owned the property in her name only to the exclusion of anybody else including the husband, but in joint name with her husband, we agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee herein that unless and until there are materials to show that the assessee is the exclusive owner of the residential property, the harshness of the proviso cannot be applied to the facts herein. Apart from that, 50% ownership is with reference to the clinic situated in the ground floor. As such, the entire property is not an exclusive residential property. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the assessee’s contention that the joint ownership of the property would not stand in the way of claiming exemption under Section 54F.
A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO in the present case shows that there was no rational or intelligible nexus between the reasons recorded by him and the belief entertained about the escapement of income of the assessee company. There was nothing in the said reasons to show existence of any positive income arising to the assessee company which was assessable in his hands and the belief entertained by the AO was based merely on assumption and surmises.
An assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer can be rectified or amended under Section 154 or Section 155 or reopened under Section 148 only by him, and by no other income-tax authority. Similarly, an assessment by way of settlement of a case, which is made by the (Income Tax Settlement Commission) ITSC, can be reopened only by the ITSC and that too only in certain circumstances. Applying this general principle that runs through the Act, an assessment by way of a settlement order passed by the ITSC cannot be reopened by a different authority, viz., the Assessing Officer.
On the issue of expenditure of 66.82 lakhs towards the issue of shares to the Employees Stock Option is concerned, the Tribunal pointed out that the shares were issued to the employees only for the interest of the business of the assessee to induce employees to work in the best interest of the assessee. The allotment of shares was done by the assessee in strict compliance of SEBI regulations, which mandate that the difference between the market prices and the price at which the option is exercised by the employees is to be debited to the Profit and Loss Account as an expenditure. The Tribunal pointed out that what had been adopted was not notional or contingent as had been submitted by the Revenue.
On reading of Section 10 (15A) of the Act it is apparent to us that for this Section, an Indian company engaged in the business of operation of aircrafts should have acquired aircraft(s) on lease under an agreement. It is only when an Indian company acquires aircraft on lease under an agreement, which was entered into on or before the 1st day of April, 2007, benefit under the said Section is available. Thus, the twin conditions; that the agreement should have been entered into on or before 1st April, 2007 and there should be acquisition of aircraft under the lease before the said date, have to be satisfied.
In the present case, what is apparent is that the lessee (assessee) paid a substantial amount (Rs. 2.53 crores) in 1989 at the time of entering into the transaction. It was a precondition for securing possession; the amount was one-time consideration in terms of the lease condition. In addition, the lessee has to pay 2.5% of the said amount as annual rent, which is subject to increase periodically. No doubt, the assessee argues that the annual rent is depressed, and does not reflect the market rent.
A partnership which admits a partner in consideration of payment of a contribution in cash does not effect towards that person a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.
Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance made of royalty paid by the respondent to CAMI USA for distribution of software products in India without appreciating that the royalty had been paid on the amount of bad debts even where the software had not worked at all?”
The facts, as disclosed from the record, in a nut-shell are that the original applicant was initially recruited as Supporting Staff Grade-I on 25.7.1979 by the 1st respondent and subsequently promoted as Supporting Staff Grade-II on 4.10.1996. In the meanwhile, he acquired matriculation qualification in the year 1995 while in service.
The Transferor Companies are in existence since 1975. It was felt that it would be in the interest of the Transferee Company to merge the five Transferor Companies with the Transferee Company, and to enable the Promoter thereof to hold shares directly in the Transferee Company rather than indirectly. The object of the Scheme is not to avoid any tax. Even today the shares are owned/controlled by the same Promoter albeit through the Transferor Companies. Under the Scheme the only difference is that the Promoter will now hold shares directly in the Transferee Company. It is correctly submitted by the Transferee Company that there is nothing illegal or unlawful or dubious or colourful in the Scheme and the same is a perfectly legitimate scheme and permissible by law.
