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...
In the instant case, admittedly, sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent-director in the year 1989, while purchasing the land on behalf of the company. The property was mortgaged by the respondent-director in his individual capacity. The parties also came to know about the property being in the name of the respondent-director, when the suit was filed and got settled by respondent-director by redeeming the property.
A company cannot, at the post-advertisement stage, disturb or unsettle the finality of a finding as to the indisputable nature of a debt rendered at the admission stage of a creditor’s winding up petition. Even though the decision at the admission stage is final as between the company and the petitioning-creditor, others connected with the company who come in after advertisements may question the finding and the Court may not feel constrained that it is bound by the finding.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of interest paid by the Assessee Company on borrowed funds amounting to Rs.241.10 lakhs overlooking the fact that the borrowed funds were used by the Assessee Company to invest in the Capital of another Partnership Firm and since profits derived by the Assessee Company from a Partnership firm were exempt from tax u/s.10(2A) of the Income-tax Act, the interest expense related to such tax free profits is to be disallowed u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act?
High Court Show Anguish Over step taken by Central Government to take steps to prevent generation and circulation of black money. The approach of the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal was absolutely contrary to the scheme of block assessment under Chapter XIVB which can be made based on convincing evidence recovered in the course of search as provided under section 158BB. The assumption by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal that without the confirmation statement by the assessees undisclosed income cannot be assessed based on evidence gathered on search is wholly unrealistic and contrary to statutory scheme for assessment of undisclosed income under Chapter XIVB of the Act.
A Division Bench of this Court in Colourtex v. Union of India 2006 (198) ELT 169 (Guj.) has held that exact differences has to be formulated by members of the Division Bench of the Tribunal and it is not open to them to formulate a question as to whether the appeal is to be rejected or remanded for a fresh decision for determination of duty, confiscation and penalty etc. In the present case it is seen that the question formulated by the Division Bench does not specify the requirement of sub-section (5) of Section 129C of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by learned third member as well as the difference of opinion expressed, generally, by differing member without precise formulation of the point of difference of the Tribunal cannot be entertained. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the learned third member as well as the difference of opinion formulated by the differing members of the Division Bench are set aside.
We do not think we would be justified in preventing the Assessing Officer from collecting evidence which may be used by him for the purpose of bringing what in his opinion is the proper amount of capital gains on the sale of Okhla land. As to how he proposes to use the evidence against the assessee is a matter of speculation which we refrain from indulging in.
Assessee owned only 38 guntas of land when he started the construction, he acquired an extent of 1,440 sq. ft. of land adjoining the said land, thus making the total land in which the project was put up, to 44,470 sq.ft. more than 43,480 sq.ft. which is prescribed under the law. The modified housing project was approved in the year 2001 after the aforesaid provision was inserted. On 20.5.2003 occupancy certificate is issued. Therefore, the construction is within the 4 years period stipulated.
After taking into consideration the Instruction No. 5 of 2008, it is found that by virtue of the said Instruction, the revenue was prohibited from pre
We find that during original assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer himself had accepted the position that the assessee had maintained quantitative details and that the general profit was on the higher side. We further find that in remand report also, the Assessing Officer could not justify the lump-sum addition other than making a short statement that addition was justified on books, vouchers, etc. as produced before him. In such circumstances, both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below deleted the lump-sum addition in the absence of any basis on the part of the Assessing Officer and even after holding that competitive details were maintained and the general profit was favourable.
Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides for furnishing a permanent account number, is contrary to Section 139A and discriminatory and therefore, read down from the statute for those persons, whose income is less than the taxable limit [A. Kowsalya & Others v. Union of India & Others (W.P 12780-12782/2010)]
