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 petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased a flat in Suvarnadeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short “Surnadeep”), Santacruz, Bombay, on March 21, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,140 for the purpose of his residence. He was residing in that flat On October 24, 1979, he sold the flat for Rs. 1,25,000
The decision in this case arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated June 1, 1985 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company carrying on business of manufacturing polyester filament yarn of the type known as Partially Oriented Yarn (“POY”)
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded.
CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) sales-tax authorities had carried on certain investigations which revealed that a racket of issuing bogus vouchers by the said parties was prevailing in the market. The Income-tax Officer also learnt from local inquiries that the parties were not available at the addresses given.
ASSETS RECEIVED UNDER GIFT – Where A acquired agricultural lands in 1961, and after converting them into non-agricultural use in 1962 gifted the lands to B in 1966, and later B sold them, the cost of acquisition under section 49(1)(ii) would be the amount originally paid by A, and not the value on the date of conversion or on the date of gift
Whether ITAT was justified in allowing depreciation even though the particulars were not furnished in the appropriate part of the return of income but they were furnished in the course of the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer at the latter’s requisition ?
We have to ascertain whether there was any evidence or material before the Tribunal to estimate the profits. It is not disputed that the books of account of the assessee were not accepted. That being so, profit had to be estimated. Such estimate was made by the authorities on the basis of the performance of the predecessor-in-interest of the assessee
Amount of the unpaid price cannot be said to be a loan advanced by the non-resident company to the assessee-company nor can be the non-resident company be said to be a lender to the assesse-company so far as that amount was concerned. Since the non-resident company cannot be said to have lent the amount of the unpaid purchase price to the assessee-company either in cash or in kind
In this case the challenge before the Court was to an order dated 29.1.1970 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax who had dismissed the petitioner’s Revision Application filed under Section 33A and Section 264(1) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The issue pertaied to the Assessment Year 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, for which period the petitioner had incurred certain expenditure
