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 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 : Allahabad High Court ruled that unlawful police custody directly infringes fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21....
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 Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an unsigned and unauthenticated loose pape...
Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court held that limitation under Section 35 of the Goa VAT Act must be computed after excluding the COVID period w...
Goods and Services Tax : The Kerala High Court ruled that businesses could distribute common ITC through cross-charge without obtaining ISD registration be...
Custom Duty : The Court held that retention of seized cash beyond six months is illegal if the extension order under Section 110(2) of the Custo...
Corporate Law : The High Court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the investigation into the alleged liquor syndicate was at a crucial stage ...
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 a major relief to equity brokers, the conflicts arising on their bad debt claims have been put to rest by the Bombay High Court. Affirming to a ruling by Mumbai ITAT special bench In the case of DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia 40 SOT 432, the court on Tuesday said stock brokers were eligible to claim deduction of the entire amount due to them from clients as a bad debt, even though only the brokerages is offered as income.
Hon’ble High Court held that provisions of Section 80-HHC required two conditions to be satisfied before an assessee could claim deduction there under. The two conditions being:- (i) the goods being export out of India and (ii) Sale proceeds of goods or merchandise exported out of India are receivable in convertible foreign exchange. The above conditions are satisfied cumulatively. Here sale made to UNICEF in India would not amount to export of goods. Accordingly the assessee is not entitled to deduction U/s 80-HHC of the Act.
The petitioner assessee had filed an appeal against the reassessment order as it was mandated and required to be filed within the period of limitation. They have, however, withdrawn the said appeal. Looking into the factual background of the present case, we feel that the plea of alternative remedy raised by the Revenue should be and ought to be rejected. Defence of alternative remedy in the present case will result in miscarriage of justice and cause prejudice to the petitioner.
CIT v. G.R. Developers Insofar as balconies are concerned, prior to 01.04.2005, the area covered by them has to be excluded in calculating the built-up area. As the housing project was approved on 14.06.2002 and in the said plan, all these balconies are shown and excluding those balconies, the construction put up is admittedly less than 1,500 sq. ft. After 01.04.2005, the authorities cannot add the balcony area to the built up area and deny the benefit to the assessee. Therefore, as the material on record discloses that all the 84 or 83 flats constructed are less than the 1,500 sq. ft., the assessee cannot be denied the benefit and taxed on the ground that it exceeds 1,500 sq. ft. Hence this question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Keeping in mind the fact that obstacles were put in assessees getting the benefit, the Legislature introduced the definition of built-up area in sub-section (14)(a) of section 80-IB. From a reading of the definition of built-up area, the intention is clear. In calculating the built-up area it is only the inner measurements of the residential unit on the floor level, which has to be taken into consideration. If there are any projections and balconies and if it exclusively belongs to the residential units, then that also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the built-up area.
Eastron Overseas Inc., Mataji Enterprises & M/s. Celestial Enterprises by bill of entries dated 12.12.2011, 14.12.2011 and 7.12.2011 had asked the Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi to permit and allow import into India of the Data Graphic Display Tubes, which have been imported from Malaysia. It was claimed that these goods could be imported under the open general license.
The acquisition is of the year 2001 while the compensation has been paid somewhere in the year 2009. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Bikram Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector [1996] 89 Taxman 119, it is to be held that interest received on delayed payment is a revenue receipt exigible to Income-tax. Since the amount has already been deposited by the respondent-authority and the deduction is in accordance with section 194A, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in upholding the action taken by respondent-authority in deducting the amount.
In the first three minutes, reward has been awarded @ 19.4% that is nearly the maximum possible rate. The said reward was on the principal amount of customs duty of Rs.1.21 crores and, therefore, the Reward Committee was competent to award a lower amount/percentage on the penalty and fine amount but this is not the reason and ground given in the last two minutes of the Reward Committee.
Prakash Leasing Ltd. v. DCIT – The lease rentals is not the real income of the assessee. The lease rental consists of financing charge as well as capital recovery. The amount received towards capital recovery constitute the capital expenditure, whereas the financing charge represents the revenue receipt, which is the real income. It is as per the Accounting Standards prescribed by the ICAI. Therefore, the assessee under the Act has to offer to tax only the real income and not the total receipt. He is not liable to pay any tax under the Act on the capital recovery.
Merely because the vehicles were used by the lessees in their business, the assessee cannot be denied the depreciation @ 40%. In fact, it is not in dispute that in respect of all these vehicles, the assessee has acknowledged the receipt of lease rent and has shown the same in his profit and loss account. It is thereafter he is claiming depreciation. If the authorities were of the view that the assessee has failed to prove his ownership over those vehicles, then, if depreciation is to be disallowed then they also should not have taken that lease rental agreement for the purpose of making the assessment. Under these circumstances, it is also not in dispute that for the subsequent years, the assessee had been granted the benefit of depreciation. Therefore, the order to be passed by the authorities should be consistent.
