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 : 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 High Court held that a company cannot shift its registered office after approval of a resolution plan when appeals against the...
Corporate Law : The Allahabad High Court held that allegations arising from private land transactions and cheating claims did not satisfy the requ...
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 Court observed that the documents produced indicated a sale of immovable property, which is not subject to GST. The matter was...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court remitted Section 74A GST orders for fresh adjudication after taxpayers argued that their replies to DRC-01 n...
Corporate Law : High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presu...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years. The Cou...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 246A does not requi...
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...
Even higher liability of the assessee had to be treated to be in issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1994 when appeal had been preferred was not permissible. The view taken by the Tribunal is consistent with above statutory provision.
CIT v Grewal Brothers – No doubt the firm and the partners may be separate entities for income tax and it may be permissible for a firm to give a contract to its partners and deduct tax from the payment made as per s 194C, but it has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of each case whether there was any separate subcontract or the firm merely acted as an agent as pleaded in the present case. The case of the assessee is that it was the partners who were executing the transportation contract by using their trucks and the payment from the companies was routed through the firm as an agent. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepted this plea on facts. Once this plea was upheld, it cannot be held that there was a separate contract between the firm and the partners in which case the firm was required to deduct tax from the payment made to its partners under s 194C.
CIT V. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. (ITA No. 164 of 2008) (Del)- Taxpayer filed its return of income for the assessment year 2001-02 on 31 March 2003 declaring a loss. The due date of filing the return of loss in terms of provisions of section 139(3) of the Income Tax Act,1 961 (the Act) was 31 October 2001. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (the AO) did not allow the carry forward of unabsorbed loss including the unabsorbed depreciation. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the AO’s order and held that the taxpayer was not allowed to carry forward the losses by virtue of section 80 of the Act. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) allowed the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment years 2000-0 1 and 2001-02. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the tax authorities filed an appeal before the High Court.
Though the excise duty was not paid at the time of clearance strictly in accordance with rules governing the same, the assessee cannot be found fault with because according to the assessee the said goods were not excisable to tax. Now the said stand has been vindicated by the order of the Appellate Authority, which has become final.
There is no dispute that C.B.E. & C. issued circular dated 27-12-2002. As per the circular, in case of bulk liquid cargo imports, shore tank receipt quantity should be taken as the basis for levy of customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority came to the conclusion that C.B.E.& C.’s circular comes into effect from 24-3-2003 on which date the Commissioner notified the same to the benefit of the parties within his jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT found fault with the same and rightly came to the conclusion that the circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. shall come into effect from the date it was issued and not from the date when it is notified by way of public notice.
The chemicals namely ZYGLO-ZP-4B and 9C RED concentrate were received in bulk packing of 205 litre of drums and those were repacked into small packs of 1 kg. and cleared as ‘trading goods’ without payment of duty. the Deputy Commissioner had made an order on 03-02-1998 in respect of one of the items covered thereunder and held that there was no suppression of facts as the respondent firm has already brought the matter to the notice of the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. The show cause notice dated 29.3.2000 was time barred and it was rightly set-aside by the Tribunal.
DIT v Sahu Jain Trust – Exemption under s 11 — A charitable trust, if acquires tenancy right in respect of some immovable property owned by a different person, and thereafter sublets the said tenancy right and in the process earns some income, such income should not be treated to be an income from business as to attract the provisions contained in s 11(4A) — as held by KolHC in DIT v Sahu Jain Trust; ITA No. 38 of 2001, 13 April 2011
Richter Holding Ltd v. ADIT – The Vodafone controversy continues – To determine taxability of acquisition of shares of a non-resident company holding majority shares in an Indian company by another non-resident, it may be necessary for the fact finding authority to lift the corporate veil to look into the real nature of transaction to ascertain virtual facts.
In so far as claiming the amount set out towards warranty is concerned, the apex court in the case of Rotark Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 has held that the principle is that the historical trend indicates that a large number of sophisticated goods were being manufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed in some of the items manufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of such sophisticated goods would be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts under section 37.
When a partnership firm is dissolved and the erstwhile partner receives stock, it is a capital asset in his hands. When that asset is introduced into a business as stock, it gets converted into stock-in-trade. The value of this stock will have to be the market value on the date of introduction. The Tribunal’s reasoning that the assessee cannot value the stock introduced in the business at market value because that was not the price she paid for it is flawed because if the assessee on having received her distributed share of stock of jewellery from the dissolved firm had sold it, and thereafter commenced her proprietorship business of jewellery again; within short span; by buying the jewellery from the market from the proceeds of stock sold on dissolution of the erstwhile firms, the stock of the proprietorship concern would without doubt be valued at market value. The same principle would apply if the assessee used her share of the stock obtained from the dissolved firm in the new business.
