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 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 Court examined whether a predicate FIR is necessary before the ED can act under the PMLA. It held that inquiry proceedings and...
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...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court remitted the GST matter for fresh consideration after the taxpayer agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The C...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court held that refund adjustment against a disputed tax demand was unsustainable when both a stay application a...
Income Tax : The High Court questioned the Revenue's refusal to grant credit for advance tax and TDS despite substantial amounts already lying ...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court quashed income tax reassessment proceedings after holding that the PAN was not transferred to the competent juri...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court upheld the ITAT's decision quashing the assessment after finding that the notice under Section 143(2) was ...
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...
Atlas Copco AB of Sweden v. CIT (Bombay High Court) – It was held that Amount received by the taxpayer was on account of right to use the know-how for a specified period and there was no outright transfer of know-how. Therefore, amount received was royalty and taxable in India.
Karnataka Government Insurance Department V. ACCE (Karnatka HC)- Activities performed by sovereign/public authorities under the provision of law, which are in the nature of statutory obligations which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law are exempt from levy of service tax. The fee collected by them for performing such activities is in the nature of compulsory levy as per the provisions of the relevant statute and it is deposited into the Government treasury. Such activity is purely in public interest and it is undertaken as mandatory and statutory function. It is in those cases, service tax is not leviable. Insurance business is not a sovereign act. No fee is collected for performing such statutory functions.
CCE Vs. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. (Karnataka HC)- Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular. At the same time, it does not confer any right on the Excise Department to demand reversal of credit or default to pay the said amount.
CIT Vs. Nova Nordisk Pharma India Ltd. (HC of Karnataka)- We find that this is not simply a situation of a product manufactured to the specifications of the assessee, being sold to the assessee at the price fixed by the supplier but this is a situation where a product manufactured out of raw materials supplied by a foreign company who had direct interest in the assessee company so manufactured to the specification of the assessee company utilising the technical know-how supplied by it and also labelling the product with the brand name of the assessee and supplying the entire product only to the assessee company
CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
In the 1st week of October, 2009, the petitioner came to know that the respondents have infringed its trademark by using the word ‘Arnimax’ on its products coupled with the trade dress and thereby has infringed the registered trademark and passed off its products as that of the petitioner. Accordingly, C.S. 360 of 2009 was filed and an interim order passed on 19th February, 2010 restraining the respondent from dealing with, offering for sale, advertising, marketing or publicising the impugned trademark ‘Arnimax’. Such order was continued on 8th April, 2010 and direction given for filing affidavits. An affidavit has been filed and a No Objection Certificate dated 9th December, 2002 has been relied upon by the respondent. Such No Objection Certificate was given by one Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. No certificate of the petitioner has been produced. In fact on a comparison of the signature of the person who is the signatory to the certificate with the signature in the Indenture of Lease dated 25th March, 1988 the said signature will not tally. The licence given to Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. by the owners of the registered trademark did not include the registered trademark ‘Arnimax’. Therefore, neither Das Homoeo Laboratory (P) Ltd. nor anyone deriving a right thereunder could have issued the No Objection Certificate. No document evidencing sale, registration or user has been produced by the respondent therefore the case of infringement made out subsists and the order dated 19th February, 2010 and subsequent orders passed be confirmed.
CCIT Vs. Rajendra Singh (Patna High Court)- Even assuming that there were temporary breaks in course of interrogation which continued for 42 hours, it is not in dispute that even on the second night of search and survey on 10.9.2010, the interrogations continued till 3 A.M. and the respondent no.3 and his family members were made to remain awake when it was time for sleep.
It is a settled proposition in law that this Court, in exercise of power of judicial review as we are exercising now, is entitled to mould the relief according to the facts and circumstances and to deny relief even though finding any error in the action of which judicial review is sought. The powers of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 are wide. This Court, to do substantial justice between the parties,
Kwality Ice Cream Company And Anr Vs. UOI (Delhi HC)- Period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. If that be the position, the period of limitation prescribed for demand of duty under Section 11A is normally one year and, in exceptional circumstance of a case falling under the proviso to Section 11A(1), the period of limitation is five years.
CIT Vs. Jai Drinks (P.) Ltd. (Delhi HC)- In the instant case, it was held that since the agreement between the assessee and the distributor clearly stated that the agreement was on principal-to-principal basis, payments made by the assessee to the distributor were incentives and discounts and were not to be treated as commission liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act.
