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.
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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court reaffirmed that taxpayers are entitled to due process before coercive recovery measures are initiated. Recovery actions ...
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...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court held that an assessee cannot file an updated return under Section 139(8A) once assessment proceedings hav...
Income Tax : The High Court set aside the Order-in-Original after noting the petitioner's grievance that submitted documents were not considere...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be justified solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax, where ...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court admitted appeals challenging the Tribunal's reliance on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for directing a fresh valuation...
Goods and Services Tax : The Court held that writ petitions need not continue once the GSTAT becomes operational and statutory appeal timelines are availab...
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, as noted earlier, a provisional attachment has already been levied on 7 October 2011 under Section 281B by which the amount which was invested by the Assessee in mutual funds of SBI Mutual Funds was attached. The attachment was to the extent of Rs.36.54 Crores. That being the position evidently there would have been no basis for forming a reason to believe that if the period of 30 days was to be observed under Section 220(1), that would be detrimental to the Revenue.
HC held that When no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in earning dividend income, notional expenditure cannot be disallowed u/s 14A. The assessee had not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend. The dividend income was incidental to the business of sale of shares, which remained unsold by the assessee. It cannot be said that the expenditure incurred in acquiring the shares had to be apportioned to the extent of dividend income and that should be a disallowance u/s 14A.
Section 147 – Sanction Of Superior Officer Renders Reopening Void: Bombay High Court. The notice under section 148 can be issued beyond four year with prior approval of joint commissioner and at the same time joint-commissioner should be satisfied that this is fit case for issue of a notice in view of section 151(2). In the present case no new evidence or fresh evidence produce by assessing officer and the joint-commissioner granted approval without see the record for issuance of notice under section 148. The court held that there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 147 and 151(2), the notice reopening the assessment cannot be sustained in law.
Assessee has filed writ petition against order passed by the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions), for denying them exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 196, on the ground that the aforesaid institute was not directly imparting education and had not employed teachers who were teaching or giving lectures to the students.
irst Petitioner does have serious issues to be urged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in appeal. This is a case where the Assessing Officer while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 220(6) and the Director of Income Tax ought to have granted a complete stay of demand. The Assessee has highlighted the nature of its activities in several applications filed in support of the plea for stay and also explained its financial position. None of this has been taken into account while disposing of the application for stay.
The case of respondent no. 1 is that all correspondence / dealing by the petitioner with the Complainant Board in this regard have been with the Northern Regional office at New Delhi, within territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The petitioner did not make application for registration with SEBI as required under statutory obligation to wind up the schemes and repay the investors as prescribed Under Section 73 of SEBI (CIS) Regulations 1999. As per the said Regulation, petitioner was required to file report with SEBI on prescribed format. He did not do so. The statutory report (Winding up and Repayment Report) has also not been filed till date. The cause of action therefore, accrued in Delhi. The petitioner also had its Office at Delhi at B-30, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. More so, the communication received on the letter head of the company thereby disclosing the office of accused company is on record, at Delhi.
The assessee has not claimed depreciation on goodwill it acquired commercial rights to sell products under the trade name and paid consideration in dispute for acquiring marketing and territorial rights to sell through dealers and distributors i.e. the network created by the seller for sale in India. Under the agreement. It become entitled to use of infrastructure developed by the seller. Rights were acquired since 1.4.1998 and these rights have all along been treated as an asset entitled to depreciation and depreciation was actually allowed in the past.
The decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (supra) has been set aside and reversed by the Supreme Court in their decision dated 8.02.2012 in the case of Topman Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (C.A. No.1699/2012) and other cases. In this decision, it has been held that the DEPB credit falls under Clause (iiib) of Section 28 of the Act whereas the premium received thereon on transfer will represent profits chargeable under Section Clause (iiid) and the deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed accordingly. It was held that only 90% of the “profits” can be excluded by applying Explanation (baa) below Section 80HHC.
High Court held that as it was not a case of actual payment, i.e., expenditure but only a provision was made in the books of accounts in respect of the excise duty payable while disputing the liability to pay the duty. Therefore, it was a case of the trading liability and the question of cessation or remission of liability was relevant and material for deciding whether or not Section 41(1) of the Act is applicable.
The Delhi high court has stated that while issuing a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an omnibus notice without specifying the amount due under the dishonoured cheque, not even calling upon the alleged accused to pay the amount of cheque, will not meet the requirement of the law. Quashing the complaint in the case, Brainobrain Kids Academy Ltd vs Continental Advertising Ltd, the court noted that the demand for return of the amount is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Thus, if the amount is not specified, the same cannot be said to be a valid demand.
