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 : Rajasthan HC dismissed petitions against border-area eviction notices, held them not maintainable, and directed a committee to exa...
Corporate Law : Karnataka HC allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court order, directed removal of stairway obstructions and reconsideration of...
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...
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 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 : Indus Ecowater Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Telangana High Court) Telangana High Court Permits GST Appeal Against Unsigned DR...
Goods and Services Tax : Telangana HC allowed filing of a delayed appeal against a Section 73 GST order and restrained coercive action for two weeks....
Goods and Services Tax : Telangana HC permitted a GST appeal against the assessment order and directed the appellate authority to consider the delay condon...
Service Tax : Delhi HC set aside service tax demand and refund rejection, holding telecommunication services qualified as export of service unde...
Income Tax : Karnataka HC quashed the Section 147 assessment and penalty notices after fresh allegations were introduced without adequate oppor...
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...
One Vivek Bansal, Liberty House, Karnal had originally purchased deep discount bonds 1997 of Industrial Development Bank of India (I.D.B.I) @ of Rs. 5500/- each (the original purchaser). From him the assessee-respondent purchased those bonds @ Rs.9700/- each on 01.01.2001 for total value of Rs.19,40,000/ – (the assessee secondary purchaser). The original purchaser filed his return for the assessment year 2001-02 and reflected the difference in amount of purchase and the sale. Thus, a sum of Rs. 9,40,000/- became long term capital gain in respect of the original assessee. It is undisputed that the bonds were subject to accruing of interest year to year although, no income was received annually by the bond holder. The condition was modified by issuance of a press note later. The assessee-secondary purchaser received a draft of Rs. 19,08,200/-. This amount has been accounted for by the assessee-secondary purchaser.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that as per the Payment of Bonus Act, if a workman had worked for 30 days in a relevant period, he was eligible for a pro rata bonus. Therefore,once the management was ready to pay bonus as per the law for the period 1991-92 (and it had so notified), it could not refuse to pay ex-gratia amount to workers.
TILL a few months back, it used to be a rare event in which the Delhi High Court used to impose costs on the Income Tax Department. And this is what perhaps encouraged the Revenue to keep filing appeals indiscriminately and virtually in all cases. But such a cosy run has evidently run out of luck now. So much exasperated is the High Court over the Department’s thick-skinned approach to curb frivolous appeals that it can now be seen imposing costs in most of the cases. And it happened even in this case where the issue revolves around allowance of bad debts and stock damages. While computing book profits u/s 115JA, the AO added back the provisions of doubtful debts and stock damages as he felt that such provisions cannot be categorised as ascertained liabilities in advance.
Even a conjoint reading of Section 36(1)(iii) as existing prior to the proviso thereto and Section 43(1) explanation 8 clearly shows that any interest paid on the capital borrowed for the acquisition of an asset cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure. The capital might have been borrowed by an assessee for the purpose of business. However, once it is admitted that a part thereof was used by the assessee for the purpose of acquisition of an asset, which is not in the form of replacement or modernization the interest component thereon upto the date it is first put to use has to be dealt with in terms of provisions of Section 43 (1) explanation 8 as otherwise cost of the asset shown in the balance sheet will not depict its true picture. This is in conformity with law and the accounting principles.
THE New Year has just set in, and things have started going awry for the CBDT. In fact the CBDT’s ‘time chakra’ had entered the adversarial zone some time late last year when the Delhi High Court had begun to take note of its frivolous appeals. It did warn the income tax authorities and also asked for detailed procedure and screening methodoligies adopted by the Board before an appeal is filed before the High Courts.
IN this batch of writ petitions, the prayer is that the provisions of Section 245D(2A), Section 245D(2D), Section 245D(4A) and Section 245HA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be declared unconstitutional. The provisions under challenge relate to settlement applications made by the Petitioners to the Settlement Commission under Section 245C of the Act prior to 1st June, 2007.
The IT Department acquired a property at Gandhi Nagar in Chennai when the agreement for sale relating to the property was submitted for getting the ‘No Objection’ certificate. This was done on the ground that the apparent consideration was less than the market value. The department made an assessment and found that the difference between the market value and the registered value was more than 15 per cent.
JUST a week ago, we carried a story and case where a Single Bench of the Delhi High Court had taken serious note of the lackadaisical approach of the Department in releasing the information. The High Court had directed the department to furnish the information within two weeks.
Right to Information is a fundamental right – Income Tax Department to furnish information sought within two weeks – serious note taken of lackadaisical approach of Department in releasing information – Delhi High Court
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi IV v. Insilco Ltd. – Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Depreciation – Allowance/rate of – Assessment year 1999-2000 – Whether in view of decision of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Woodward, Governor India (P.) Ltd. [2007] 162 Taxman 60, Tribunal was correct in allowing depreciation to assessee on increase in cost of plant and machinery due to increased liability on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation on last date of accounting year – Held, yes
