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...
Whether a manufacturer is required to reverse/pay the amount equivalent to the CENVET credit taken by him in respect of inputs which are proved to have been used in the manufacture of goods which have been cleared under exemption from excise duty, in view of the specific provisions of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (now 2004) read with Explanation II to Rule 6 (3) of the said rules which provide that no credit can be taken in respect of inputs which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods?
Assessee is engaged in the business of production and export of software from India to foreign countries and they are not in the business of providing technical services outside India, it is only producing and exporting software. The material on record clearly shows that except for these three years, rest of the certificates are correctly issued showing the amount involved in the production and export of the software at Clause 3(i). It is only in these three years certificates as against the Clause 3(i) nothing is typed and it is typed against Clause 3(ii). Hence, we are satisfied that there is a bona fide typographical error. The Chartered Accountant without carefully looking into those entries has issued the certificates, which has resulted in confusion.
Subsequently, a tripartite agreement was entered into on 27.10.1994 between the vendors P. Srinivsan, R. Dhanapal, T.T.V. Dhinakaran T.R. Harikrishnan G. Balasundaram, R. Annamalai, K. Sadagopal and M.K. Saravanan represented by the Power of Attorney M/s. Emerald Promoters Pvt. Ltd., who in turn also appeared as a confirming party and M/s. Sudsun Housing I Ltd. as a purchaser, wherein the above said vendors agreed to convey the balance of 83.96% undivided share of the lands in favour of the purchaser.
In the case before us, it is not been established that the assessee has written off the outstanding liabilities in the books of account. The Appellate Tribunal is justified in taking the view that as assessee had continued to show the admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet the same cannot be treated as assessment of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities are outstanding for last many years, it cannot be inferred that the said liabilities have seized to exist. The Appellate Tribunal has rightly observed that the Assessing Officer shall have to prove that the assessee has obtained the benefits in respect of such trading liabilities by way of remission or cessation thereof which is not the case before us.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) may apply for a declaration of contravention of civil penalty provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, pecuniary penalty orders , compensation orders and orders disqualifying a person from managing corporations for a period . In proceedings in which declarations of contravention, pecuniary penalty orders and disqualification orders were sought, ASIC alleged that the defendants who are the present respondents had each breached his or her duty as a director or an officer of a listed public company. ASIC alleged, and the directors denied, that the directors had approved the company’s releasing to the Australian Stock Exchange an announcement that was misleading. The minutes of the board meeting, confirmed at a subsequent board meeting, recorded the tabling of a draft announcement and its approval by the board.
The impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 could not have been issued under Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. However, even if it is assumed that the impugned show cause notice was issued in exercise of the powers of revision under Section 74A of the DVAT Act, the period of limitation would be that which was in vogue when the said notice was issued. The period of limitation that would apply would, therefore, be the one prescribed under Section 74A(2)(b) of the DVAT Act. And, that being the case, as we have mentioned above, the impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2010 is barred by time.
If there is a foreign travel in connection with the business, merely because in the said foreign travel, no business could be transacted or the foreign travel did not result in bagging any contract is not the determinative factor. The relevant factor was as to whether he was sent by the assessee abroad in connection with the business of the assessee.
Where larger bench of SC overrules its earlier decision on which Tribunal relied on, Tribunal can rectify that – Clearly, a time limit of four years from the date of the order has been prescribed in respect of the exercise of the power of rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. There is absolutely no doubt that had an appeal or other proceeding been pending in respect of the order of the Tribunal in this case, when the decision in Gold Coin (supra) was rendered, that decision would have to be followed. But, as it happens, no appeal or other proceeding was pending. However, the period of four years stipulated in Section 254(2) had not elapsed. Thus, in our view, once we recognize the fact that the Supreme Court decision in Gold Coin (supra) operates retrospectively and therefore it has to be regarded as the law as it existed when the order was passed by Tribunal,
Interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C cannot be charged in the absence of any mention of charging of interest in assessment order – The High Court observed that in the case of Anjum M. H Ghaswala the Supreme Court has held collection of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was mandatory. The High Court relied on decision of Dehradun Club Ltd. (ITA No. 15 of 2006) wherein it was held that there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H Ghaswala but at the same time if the assessment order contained the imposition of interest, only then, a notice of demand of interest could be issued under Section 156 of the Act.
The Karnataka HC has held that the reduction in the share of partners after the reconstitution of partnership firms does not amount to a taxable transfer. Further, it reaffirmed that, tax planning within the frame work of law is permitted.The principles laid down in this decision can also be applied to the limited liability partnerships, in similar circumstances.
