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 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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Rajasthan High Court examined whether GST registration could be refused due to non-filing of returns in another State. It held...
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 : Assessment orders passed pursuant to express liberty granted by the High Court during pendency of settlement-related litigation re...
Income Tax : The Telangana High Court held that Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act is confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the recor...
Goods and Services Tax : The Telangana High Court granted interim protection against coercive GST recovery proceedings until the GST Appellate Tribunal bec...
Goods and Services Tax : The Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to withdraw the writ petition challenging a GST demand order and pursue the statut...
Corporate Law : The Telangana High Court held that if a Sub-Registrar refuses registration, reasons must be recorded and communicated under Sectio...
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 Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court An exemption was claimed under Section 54EC. All the necessary facts on the basis of which the claim to an exemption are founded must be disclosed. As the assessee failed to do so, the Revenue in the present case would be justified in reopening the assessment on the ground that income has escaped assessment. Clause (c) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 provides for cases where income chargeable to tax is deemed to have escaped assessment.Among those cases are cases where an assessment has been made but (i) income chargeable to tax has been under assessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed to a lower rate; or (iii)such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act; or (iv)an excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under the Act has been computed. The Assessing Officer in the present case has not exceeded his jurisdiction in reopening the assessment.
Though the proviso to section 11 was inserted by section 80 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 10-9-2004, and sought to incorporate the machinery provision for recovery of sums due to government under the Act earlier incorporated in Rule 230(2), it is only an enabling provision for recovery of sums due to the government by which the Central Excise Department is permitted to attach and sell all excisable goods, materials, preparations,
CIT vs. The Stock and Bond Trading Company (Bombay High Court)- Payments made by the Assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation are not an account of an offence or which is prohibited by law. Hence, the invocation of explanation to section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not justified. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT.
CIT vs. M/s K. Mohan & Co. (Exports) (Bombay High Court)-In both the cases, the assessment was sought to be reopened on account of retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st April 1998. If the legislature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment.
Court has held that amendment made in section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2010 is retrospective in nature and would apply from 01.04.2005. The said amendment provides that no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be made where the TDS has been paid before the due date of filing of return of income. This is first ruling of any High Court on this issue.
Shah Pulp & Paper Mills Limited Vs. UOI (Delhi HC) – In considering the challenge to the validity of paragraph 7(iii), it has become necessary for the Court to advert in some detail to the background underlying the promulgation of the scheme. The scheme, when it was issued initially on 24 November 2005 was designed to promote an expeditious facilitation of import cargo. The scheme seeks to balance the need of the trade and industry for facilitation on the one hand with the enforcement concerns of the department. An importer who is registered as an accredited client becomes entitled under the scheme to a clearance of the cargo on the basis of self assessment.
CIT Vs. Sumangal Overseas Ltd. (Delhi HC) – The Court held that where no appeal is preferred by the assessee against the quantum order, yet, while deciding the penalty appeal, it is open to the Tribunal to look into the transaction to see as to whether the claim was bona fide or it was bogus and result of falsehood. From that angle, when the Tribunal examined the matter, it found that on the facts of this case when advances given to the suppliers were not written off as irrecoverable, the same was allowable under Section 28 of the Act. A trading loss has a wider connotation than a bad debt. A bad debt may also be a trading loss, but a trading loss need not necessarily be a bad debt. There may be a bad debt which may not fall within the purview of Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, but may well be regarded as one eligible for deduction incurred in the course of carrying on business will come under that category and will naturally enter into computing the net total income as the real profit chargeable to tax cannot be arrived at without setting off legitimate trading loss.
CIT Vs. Kas Movie Pvt. Ltd (Delhi HC) – For the purpose of claiming benefit under Section 80HHF of the Act, ownership of goods is not essential as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sea Pearl Industries and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 247 ITR 578. Thus, when two views were possible and the assessee made the claim on the basis of advice of the consultants, it was not a case where the penalty should have been imposed.
CIT vs. Moderate Leasing & Capital Services Ltd. (Delhi HC) – The Court, on the facts of the case held that where two portfolios are maintained by the assessee, i.e., investment portfolio and stock in trade, then, if the shares sold during the particular year pertains to investment portfolio and there happens to be loss, then such loss would be capital loss; and not the revenue loss.
In view of the order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Co. Appl. 1633/2011 in Co. Pet. No. 265/1998 as well as the fact that sale deeds in the present applications have been executed and some payments have been paid only after appointment of Provisional Liquidator, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision rendered by the One Man Committee. It is pertinent to mention that the sale deeds have been executed contrary to a specific injunction order dated 05th June, 1998 and the payments made by the applicants after the appointment of Provisional Liquidator have not been received by the Official Liquidator. Further, no transparent procedure of sale/auction has been followed as is normally done in cases after appointment of Provisional Liquidator. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that even though the applicants are entitled in law to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, yet keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief under the said Section.
