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 : 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 Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing ...
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...
Kerala High Court has vide its order dated 16.06.2011 granted interim stay against any coercive steps of recovery of service tax or against any proceedings for imposing penalty for a period of two months on Restaurant and short term accommodation service.
CIT v Ashok Kumar Arora (Delhi High Court) Whether the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions which were made by the AO based upon documents/evidence detected during the course of operations u/s 132 of the Act and which was confronted to the assessee by way of recording of statement under the provision of 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of confessional statement u/s 132(4) of the Act given by the assessee at the point of search especially in view of judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 17
Kumudam Printers Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Madras high Court)- Whether capital gain arising out of the sale of land and building is liable to be included for computation of book profits under Section 115J – Whether when there is no failure on part of the appellant to disclose any material fact at the time of the original assessment and hence, the reopening of the assessment pursuant to a notice under Section 148 issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is liable to be annulled. – Assessee `s appeal allowed.
CIT Vs A Y Broadcast Foundation (Kerala High Court) – Generally, the activities refereed to therein i.e. production of television and radio programmes and telecasting and broadcasting of the same are commercial activities. Further the object clause provided for the assessee to act as an agent, broker, liasioner, introducer etc., which are purely commercial activities intended to make profit. Since the assessee is not holding any business in charity or distributing any surplus for charitable purposes, the question to be considered is whether the carrying on of the activities referred to in the object clause by itself constitute advancement of any object of general public utility within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act.
Shroff United Chemicals Limited. versus The Union of India – The Bombay high court last week described the denial of interest on refund of service tax by the deputy commissioner as ‘specious’ in the case, Shroff United Chemicals Ltd vs Union of India. It asked the revenue authorities to pay interest for the delayed refund. The firm, in anticipation of import of intellectual property services, had obtained service tax registration.
This appeal is filed by the revenue being aggrieved by the order dated 3-4-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘A’ (hereinafter called as ‘Tribunal’ for brevity) bearing 1TA No. 1020/Bang/08 for the assessment year 2005- 06.
CIT v Tata SSL Ltd (Mumbai High Court) – by paying the impugned charges to Mahanagar Gas Ltd., the assessee did not acquire any right or control over the gas facility. The Tribunal held that the facilities served the sole purpose of supplying the gas to the assessee’s work and, therefore, it was an integral part of the profit earning process and facilitated in carrying on the assessee’s business more efficiently without giving any enduring benefit to the assessee.
Delhi High Court judgment on Writ Petition No. 328, 340/2010 – Ravina and Associates vs CIT. Stay on recovery of tax demand. Key details here.
CIT v Shivalik Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. – ITAT, on the basis of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that the building of the poultry shed has been specifically designed with a view to protect the birds from disease. It has been designed to ensure proper lighting and circulation of air; proper and scientific feeding arrangement; proper water system; proper arrangement for collection of manure and droppings; proper arrangement for medication and vaccination; and a right environment conducive for laying of eggs by the birds. The building had been designed in a manner so as to protect the birds and increase their productivity. The argument made on behalf of the revenue that the building can be used with certain modification for certain other purposes cannot be accepted. It is how the building is designed which is the main factor which is to be taken into consideration. The law is clear that if it is found that the building has been designed specifically to further the cause of manufacture or production then the same is a plant. Applying the aforesaid test, we hold that the poultry sheds are plant within the meaning of section 243, as it then stood.
Deepak Engineering Works and Others v CIT and Others (Patna High Court)- , section 278B, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they are not responsible for any of the offence committed by a firm / company. First proviso to section 278B(1), quoted above, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they were not responsible for acts of omission or commission committed by the firm / company. The question as to whether petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were actually involved in this case or not is a question of fact which is to be determined during the trial and onus is on the petitioners to prove that they were not responsible for any act of omission or commission of the firm i.e. petitioner no.1 M/s Deepak Engineering Works. Accordingly, in view of statutory provisions contained in section 278B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act) first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable.
