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...
The expression ‘reasonable cause’ used in Section 273B is not defined under the Act. Unlike the expression ‘sufficient cause’ used in Section 249(3), 253(5) and 260A(2A) of the Act, the legislature has used the expression ‘reasonable cause’ in Section 273B of the Act. A cause which is reasonable may not be a sufficient cause. Thus, the expression ‘reasonable cause’ would have wider connotation than the expression ‘sufficient cause’. Therefore, the expression ‘reasonable cause’ in Section 273B for non-imposition of penalty under Section 271E would have to be construed liberally depending upon the facts of each case.
In the said assessment year, the assessee had earned premium of Rs.12,26,140/- on sale of export quota. The Assessing Officer held that this premium is covered by Section 28 (iiia/b/c) and accordingly computed deduction under Section 80HHC but without giving benefit of provisos under sub Section (3) to Section 80HHC. He observed that the export turnover in the previous year was exceeding Rs.10 crores and the assessee had not complied with the several conditions mentioned in the provisos. The sale proceeds received from sale of quota rights were excluded from benefit under the provisos to Section 80HHC(3) as this was not the regular business income of the assessee.
The impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission deserves to be upheld as the assessee, it is apparent, is caught in its own web, which it stoutly and strongly deny. Even now in the writ petition they have urged and argued that their conduct and actions were bona fide and solely guided by the noble and honourable desire to come clean with their inglorious past. The assessee claims that they without any motive or intention to help a third person, declared undisclosed taxable income of Rs. 1,36,08,897. It is being recorded that the undisclosed income has been partly accepted and immunity from penalty and prosecution stands granted, but the ‘wrong’ is checkmated and corrected by the Settlement Commission.
This appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging the interim order of stay in particular the order directing the appellant to pay 10% of the demand as security while entertaining the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules in 2010 providing for proportionate credit, the order which is challenged in appeal has been recalled by the authorities and therefore, the appeal itself has become infructuous.
In a writ petition filed by small investors, Karnataka High Court Held that provisions of Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act are contrary to provisions of Section 139A of the Act. Accordingly, provision of Section 206AA were made inapplicable to persons and was read down from the Act only for those persons whose income was less than the taxable limits. However, the High Court made it very clear that the provisions of the Section 206AA are applicable to the persons whose income is more than the taxable limits.
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 to successor of business on account of omission and failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for determining the income chargeable to tax for these assessment years is valid?
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. [122 (2005) DLT 612], albeit, in context of reduction of share capital. In that case also, the scheme of the reduction was such that many shareholders like the applicants in the instant case were deprivation of their shareholdings on payment of certain price. The Court took note of the general rule that it was the prescribed majority of the shareholders which is entitled to decide whether there should be a reduction in capital or not. After taking note of various judgments
The Speed Post is a new mode of sending post, and therefore, this new postal mode if is not mentioned in Statute specifically, even then because of above reason that service by Speed Post is included in generic word Post or Registered Post.
Issue -Whether the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse? In CIT versus Daulat Ram Rawat Mull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, the Supreme Court held that onus of proving what was apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. There should be some direct nexus between the conclusions of fact arrived at by the authorities concerned and the primary facts upon which the conclusion is based. Use of extraneous or irrelevant material in arriving at the conclusion would vitiate the conclusion of fact, because it is difficult to predicate to what extent, the extraneous and irrelevant material has influenced the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact.
there is no liability to pay excise duty on the used capital goods, as a consequence the goods are not liable to be confiscated. They are, therefore, liable to be released without payment of any redemption fine. Moreover, there is also no question of the appellant paying any penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The capital goods if still under seizure are directed to be returned to the appellant without payment of any redemption fine. The question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
