Follow Us:

high court judgments

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.

Latest Articles


Adult Woman Cannot Be Forced to Return Home or Marry: Bombay HC

Corporate Law : Bombay HC held that a 21-year-old woman cannot be compelled to return home or marry against her wishes, treating residence, marria...

July 8, 2026 399 Views 0 comment Print

MP HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Against Threats To Judge Tabassum Khan

Corporate Law : The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for delivering judgments since every judicial orde...

July 4, 2026 429 Views 0 comment Print

Ignoring Notices at AO and CIT(A) Stages Can Ruin Direct Tax Cases

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...

July 4, 2026 414 Views 0 comment Print

Bombay HC Comes Down Heavily On Slapping Of Cases On Those Who Protest

Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It r...

July 3, 2026 474 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi HC Awards ₹18.44 Lakh to Father for Son’s Custodial Death

Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if ca...

July 3, 2026 282 Views 0 comment Print


Latest News


Latest Case Law Related to IBC 2016: January to March 2026

Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...

May 21, 2026 483 Views 0 comment Print

Important Case Laws related to IBC 2016 – July – September 2025

Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...

November 20, 2025 5535 Views 0 comment Print

BREAKING: Gujarat HC Orders CBDT to Ensure 1-Month Gap Between ITR & Tax Audit Dates

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...

October 13, 2025 21288 Views 1 comment Print

Rajasthan HC Extends Tax Audit Filing Deadline to 31 October 2025

Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court granted a one-month extension for filing TARs under Section 44AB for AY 2025-26, citing delayed audit utility...

September 25, 2025 1047 Views 0 comment Print

CAAS Files writ challenging persistent technical failures in Income Tax portal

Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court is hearing a petition from the Chartered Accountants Association regarding persistent glitches on the new I...

September 25, 2025 8214 Views 1 comment Print


Latest Judiciary


DVC’s Differential Tariff and IBC-Linked Claims Referred to Arbitration; Limitation Kept Open: Calcutta HC

Corporate Law : Calcutta HC appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6), leaving arbitrability, limitation, admissibility of claims, and relat...

July 10, 2026 54 Views 0 comment Print

Section 73 SCN Mandatory; DRC-01 Summary Not a Substitute: Gauhati HC

Goods and Services Tax : Gauhati HC held that a DRC-01 summary cannot replace a Section 73(1) SCN, quashed the Order-in-Original, and permitted fresh proce...

July 10, 2026 57 Views 0 comment Print

FIR Quashing Refused as Forgery & Conspiracy Allegations Require Investigation: Calcutta HC

Corporate Law : Calcutta HC refused to quash an FIR alleging forgery and criminal conspiracy, holding that prima facie cognizable offences require...

July 10, 2026 69 Views 0 comment Print

Section 264 Revision Quashed for Cursorily Dealing with Contentions: Gujarat HC

Income Tax : Gujarat HC quashed a Section 264 revision order and remanded the matter after finding the petitioner's contentions were cursorily ...

July 10, 2026 54 Views 0 comment Print

Section 80-IA(9) Restricts Double Deduction Without Reducing Gross Total Income: Madras HC

Income Tax : Madras HC remanded Section 80-IB and 80-HHC deduction computation, applying SC ruling that Section 80-IA(9) prevents double deduct...

July 10, 2026 60 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Notifications


Co-op Society Can Deny Membership for ‘Refuge Area’ Flat: Bombay HC

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...

March 25, 2026 2553 Views 0 comment Print

Bombay High Court Enforces Video Conferencing Rules

Corporate Law : Bombay High Court implements "Rules for Video Conferencing 2022" for all courts in Maharashtra, Goa, and union territories, effect...

December 19, 2024 2130 Views 0 comment Print

CBDT Revises Monetary Limits for Tax Income Tax Appeals

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, ...

September 17, 2024 17943 Views 0 comment Print

New Video Conferencing Protocols Issued by Delhi High Court

Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court mandates new video conferencing protocols to enhance transparency and accessibility in court proceedings. Rea...

May 20, 2024 1776 Views 0 comment Print

Instructions for AO after Adverse observations of Allahabad HC

Income Tax : Income Tax Department Issues Instructions for Assessing Officers after Adverse Observations of Hon. Allahabad High Court in in Civ...

August 7, 2022 12993 Views 2 comments Print


TDS not deductible on judgment debt

March 22, 2002 17790 Views 0 comment Print

Argument of the learned counsel on behalf of the Food Corporation of India that since the amount of Rs. 10,31,344 has admittedly been paid on account of interest, it retains its character as interest and, therefore, the Food Corporation of India must be allowed to deduct interest thereon at the rate in force, is not tenable

Contravention of s. 11(5) have no bearing on renewal U/s. 80G(5)

December 13, 2001 916 Views 0 comment Print

Even if the ground about contravention of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act is validly taken by the respondent, the same would have a bearing only at the point of time of the assessment of the petitioner-trust and would not be a material consideration in so far as granting of approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act is concerned.

Penalty only on Income determined by AO in excess of Income in return filed U/s. 158BC

September 20, 2001 1248 Views 0 comment Print

Explore the Kerala High Court judgment in CIT vs. Shri. C. Najeeb regarding penalty on income determined under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act. Discover key questions of law, such as whether the Tribunal’s decision to levy income tax on 15% of total receipts is correct. Dive into the intricacies of assessment and penalty proceedings, including insights on undisclosed income, civil liability, and the interpretation of Section 158BFA. Uncover the court’s findings, providing clarity on the computation of undisclosed income and the imposition of penalties in this significant tax case.

Ram Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others – Allahabad High Court

August 11, 2000 3316 Views 0 comment Print

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.

Estate of Ambalal Sarabhai vs CIT (Gujarat High Court)

July 4, 2000 1923 Views 0 comment Print

The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, has referred the following questions in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 for the consideration of the High Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, from the Tribunal’s order dt. 18th August 1981, and 20th August 1983, the later being question on the ground which was raised but through oversight not decided in the earlier order by the Tribunal.

CIT vs J. K. Investor (Bombay) Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

June 5, 2000 1800 Views 0 comment Print

The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether notional interest on interest-free deposit received by the assessee against letting of property could be taken into account in cases falling under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) In other words, whether notional interest would form part of actual rent received or receivable under section 23(1)(b) ?

Gujarat Gas Ltd vs. JCIT (2000) – Gujarat High Court- 245 ITR 84

April 18, 2000 2784 Views 0 comment Print

In our opinion, the view which we are taking is also fortified by the proviso to s. 119 of the Act which specifically provides that the Board cannot issue instructions to the IT authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner as well as not to interfere with the discretion of the CIT(A) in exercise of his appellate functions.

Penalty on Declaration of additional income to buy peace with Department?

July 20, 1999 6172 Views 0 comment Print

Shorn of all details, it emerges that the assessee first filed his returns for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 showing income ranging between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 12,000. Later action under Section 132 was taken against him which led to reopening of the assessment. A notice under Section 148 was served on him

A married lady of reputed family is expected to own 500 gms of ornaments

July 8, 1999 1989 Views 0 comment Print

As per the CBDT Circular discussed in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO; 240 ITR 727 Karnatka 500gm, jewellery is expected in the possession of a married lady and that much of ornaments cannot be seized. If we go with the CBDT Circular dated 11.05.1994 and the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Pati Devi (supra), then each lady is expected to own 500gm. ornaments.

Sales amount by itself cannot represent income of assessee who has not disclosed sales

April 20, 1999 5685 Views 0 comment Print

It cannot be a matter of an argument that the amount of sales by itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed the sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031