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...
CIT VS. SIEMENS AG (BOMBAY HIGH COURT) If the Tribunal has answered an issue and that has not been challenged by the revenue, it will not be open to the revenue to raise the said issue again in respect of the same assessee; The judgement of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries vs. DIT 288 ITR 408 (SC) has been overcome by the Explanation to s. 9 inserted by the FA 2007 which provides that income from royalty paid by a resident would be deemed to accrue in India even if the recipient has no PE
SHIVSAGAR VEG VS. ACIT It is incumbent upon the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal cannot brush aside the reasons or findings recorded by the lower authorities. It must give reasons and its failure to do so renders its’ order unsustainable
It is settled law that a writ cannot be entertained against a mere show-cause notice unless the Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts. The assessee has not been able to demonstrate absolute want of jurisdiction in the AO.
The period of limitation during which an order imposing a penalty can be passed in the case falling under section 275 (1)(c) would be a period of six months beginning from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of pending was initiated. The period of limitation during which an order imposing a penalty can be passed in the case falling under section 275 (1)(c) would be a period of six months beginning from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of pending was initiated.
Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd 317 ITR 249 (Del)- Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.
The tribunal was not right in law in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and was wrong in holding that the penalty order passed on 17.02.2004 under Section 271B was within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.
Although, no claim under Section 10A had been made before the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee had made such a claim before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee was fully justified in raising the claim under Section 10A of the said Act
H.H. Maharaja v. ACIT – September 12, 2008 – Section 166 can be invoked only when the income is received by the assessee; unless and until the trustees exercise the discretion and distribute the income in favour of any of the beneficiaries, i.e. the assessee, such income cannot be said to be received by the assessee; merely on the basis of presumption, income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
The payment for use of services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source.
Income tax – DTAA – Assessee is incorporated in Netherlands – engaged in airlines business of carrying passengers as well as cargo – gets licence from Airport Authority of India for cargo space – enters into a contract with a company to take care of cargo-booking and handling service on commission basis – While making payments to the outsourced company the assessee adjusts the rent payable to AAI – AO treats the rent deducted from the payments made to the outsourced company as income taxable to tax in India – Tribunal finds it inextricably linked to the cargo handling business for which licence was issued and such rent adjustment cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources – Tribunal has correctly understood the law – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
