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 Madhya Pradesh High Court held that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for delivering judgments since every judicial orde...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It r...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if ca...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 143(3) assessment after finding that the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity of...
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 Court quashed criminal proceedings after finding that the petitioner had ceased to be a director before the due date for filin...
Income Tax : Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, the requirement of further probe into digital and fina...
Income Tax : The Orissa High Court ruled that an ITAT appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the authorised representative violated the virt...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka HC directed the State to determine and reimburse differential GST arising from GST implementation on works contracts, su...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras HC held tobacco remains unmanufactured where no new product emerges, setting aside higher compensation cess demand and recl...
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 Court ruled that filing GSTR-3B returns and paying tax nullifies best judgment assessment orders under Section 62. Interest liability for delayed payment, however, was left intact.
Orrisa High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount refunded with respect to IGST paid on ocean freight. Accordingly, competent authority is directed to pay simple interest @6% per annum on amount of refund.
Madras High Court held that dormant partner cannot be made vicariously liable for benami transaction especially since even the necessary averment to invoke vicarious liability is absent in the complaint. Accordingly, order set aside to that extent.
Karnataka High Court held that vocational training qualifies as education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed since surplus generated is used only for educational purposes. Accordingly, writ allowed.
The Court held that a final GST adjudication order passed within three months of the show cause notice violates Section 73 of the CGST Act. Orders issued without granting the statutory minimum response period were declared unsustainable.
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
The Court held that interest under reverse charge cannot be recovered without prior adjudication. Coercive recovery was set aside as the liability was not an admitted tax.
The issue was a municipal demand raised without prior notice. The Court accepted the authority’s statement to treat it as a show cause notice and ensure a hearing before any final decision.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed when financial statements were not called for despite the taxpayer’s willingness to furnish them. The court set aside the notice, holding that lack of proper opportunity vitiated the reopening.
The Court held that reassessment based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC is invalid. The key takeaway is that such amendments cannot reopen concluded assessments.
