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 Allahabad High Court held that a three-month gap between the alleged harassment and the student’s suicide broke the necessar...
Goods and Services Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that supplier tax payment remains mandatory for ITC claims under Section 16(2)(c). However, ITC cann...
Income Tax : The article explains how the High Court held that corporate guarantee fees do not qualify as Fees for Technical Services under the...
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 : 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 : The Bombay High Court held that blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A automatically ceases after one year. The Court ruled t...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that short deduction of TDS under a different provision does not trigger disallowance under Section 40(a)(i...
Goods and Services Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Karnataka High Court held that blocking an electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A without a pre-decisional hearing was unsust...
Goods and Services Tax : The Karnataka High Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before provisional attachm...
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...
Calcutta High Court admits plea challenging GST adjudication order and validity of CBIC notifications extending limitation period under Section 168A of the CGST Act.
Delhi High Court held that bail application in GST fraudulent Input Tax Credit [ITC] matter is allowed since entire evidence has already been collected and there is little likelihood of tampering with evidence.
The High Court set aside the ex-parte assessment and appeal order, granting the partnership firm another opportunity to respond to the Section 148 notice. The ruling accepts the taxpayer’s non-response as due to bona fide, unavoidable circumstances.
Karnataka High Court set aside the ex-parte reassessment (u/s 147 and 144) because all preceding notices (including 148A) were mailed to taxpayer’s outdated address. HC found merit in bona fide non-receipt due to address change and remanded matter for fresh consideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment (u/s 147 and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued notices, violating the Section 151A mandate for faceless reassessment. The ruling reinforces that all orders based on notices issued outside the scheme’s scope are void and stand quashed.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment notices (u/s 148A and 148) because the jurisdictional AO issued them, violating the mandate of Section 151A under the faceless scheme. The ruling confirms that notices issued outside the centralized, faceless framework are invalid and without authority.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 10 was condoned since activities of trust are genuine and denial of benefit of accumulation u/s. 11(2) due to delay in Form No. 10 would cause genuine hardship.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the reassessment proceedings, including Section 148A and consequential penalty orders, ruling they were initiated without jurisdiction. The court found that the jurisdictional AO issued notices outside the scope of Section 151A, violating the CBDT’s faceless scheme.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the ex parte assessment, penalty, and demand orders passed under Sections 143(3) and 144B, accepting the taxpayer’s plea of bona fide non-appearance. The court adopted a justice-oriented approach, remitting the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration from the show-cause notice stage.
The Karnataka High Court struck down an Income Tax attachment under Section 281B because the property was exclusively owned by a non-assessee petitioner who acquired it through valid transactions. The court ruled that tax recovery cannot attach property not belonging to the actual assessee, making the order illegal.
