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 Andhra Pradesh High Court held that refund arising from an unconstitutional GST levy carries a constitutional right to interes...
Corporate Law : The Allahabad High Court observed that criminal case delays are caused not only by judicial officers but also by inadequate infras...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court quashed a POCSO FIR after noting that the relationship was consensual and the parties were married with a chi...
Goods and Services Tax : You Already Filed One Refund Application… So You Cannot File Another?” Bombay High Court Says GST Law Does Not Work That Way S...
Corporate Law : The article questions why West Uttar Pradesh has been denied a High Court Bench despite contributing the majority of pending cases...
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...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without proper hearing and a reasoned order. The Court quashed th...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation under Section 11(2) should be condoned where gen...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court held that consolidated show cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act can legally cover multiple...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 3...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gain...
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 assessees were the Directors of M/s Hotel AMS Pvt. Ltd., Kondalapatti, Salem. During the course of survey conducted on 16.11.1999 under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, it was noticed that the company had constructed the hotel with the share capital funds said to have been floated by the Directors. On enquiry with the assessees, the assessees offered a sum of Rs.12,00,000/ – as income, out of which Rs 2,00,000/- each in the name of the assessees and remaining in the name of other members in Hindu Undivided Family.
The Hon’ble Court held that the fact that parties were in discussions on the issue of payment for the extra work items undertaken by the Appellant and the exact work to be executed where-after the Respondent submitted its final bill followed by the No-Claim Certificate would be “clear cut evidence” to show that there was an accord on all disputes between the parties which was arrived at after protracted correspondence and claims in respect of the disputes settled in the accord could not have been raised and the accord reopened.
The Tribunal has the discretion of granting stay and dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty. Secondly, the argument that under Section 35-C(2A) of the Act, the appeal is required to be heard within 180 days, would also be frivolous as the stay order is not co-terminus with the period prescribed for disposal of the appeal.
If a building is taken on lease and expenditure incurred on renovation of the same, Explanation 1 will apply and such expenditure can be capitalised for claiming depreciation. When a company incurs expenditure either by way of construction or renovation to an existing building in leasehold premises, questions arise with regard to the deductibility of […]
The learned Tribunal has noted that it was common ground between both the parties that the income of the Assessee was liable to be determined on an estimate basis.
CIT vs Bhiwani Synthetics Ltd.- Citation 199 Taxation 204 Validity of Return – Return signed by General Manager of Company The return of the assessee company was signed by the General Manager (Finance). The CIT(A) and the Tribunal directed the A.O. to give an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect. The company had given a power of attorney to the said General Manager to sign the return. The company had not disowned the return. The order of the Tribunal was not prejudiced to Revenue. No question of law arose.
Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer. It also deals with the procedure when the case is transferred from one Assessing Officer subordinate to a Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to an Assessing Officer who is not subordinate to the same Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The aforementioned situation and the definition of expression ‘case’ in relation to jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer is quite understandable but it has got nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal or High Courts merely because Section 127 of the Act dealing with transfer has been incorporated in the same chapter. Therefore, the argument raised is completely devoid of substance and we have no hesitation to reject the same.
Section 254 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 relates to appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by assessees and the tax department. It also deals with the law relating to grant of stay of demand on assessees’ petitions. This section was amended w.e.f. June 1, 2001, to provide that where in an appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal passes an order granting stay of demand, it shall hear and decide such appeal within 180 days from the date of passing of stay order, failing which, the stay granted shall stand vacated on the expiry of this period.
In the present case, the dividend income is admittedly taxed in the hands of the assessee/ shareholder. Once the dividend income is assessed in the hands of the assessee / share-holder, the proviso to Section 199 of the Act would have no application and consequently denying the credit of TDS to the assessee / shareholder does not arise at all. The first proviso to Section 199 read with Rule 30A apply inter alia, where the dividend income is to be taxed in the hands of a person other than the shareholder. As the case of the assessee falls in the first part of Section 199, the assessee could not be denied credit of TDS.
Does the third proviso to Section 254 (2A) of Income Tax Act, have the effect of denuding the Tribunal of its incidental power to grant interim reliefs? Finance Act 2007 substituted sub-section (2A) to Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1st June, 2007.
