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 High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the hearing notice was received by the taxpayer only after the hear...
Goods and Services Tax : Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violated Sections 73 and 74 of...
Goods and Services Tax : Uttarakhand High Court directed refund of GST deducted on sale of rejected wheat and paddy seeds after noting that the goods were ...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid where the Assessing Officer sought to make ...
Income Tax : The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be reopened merely on suspicion arising from investigation repor...
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 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.
The Karnataka High Court struck down the Section 148 reassessment notice for being issued outside the jurisdiction/scope defined by Section 151-A. This decision invalidates the subsequent assessment, penalty, and demand, pending a final verdict from the Supreme Court on the core legal issue.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming that payments for software usage to a non-resident are not taxable as royalty under the Income Tax Act or DTAA. The court held the issue was conclusively settled by its own and the Supreme Court’s prior rulings in the assessee’s and similar cases.
Delhi HC rules increasing product quantity or base price instead of reducing MRP after a GST rate cut violates Section 171 of the CGST Act, confirming it as profiteering.
Calcutta HC ruled on challenging a Faceless Assessment order, directing the taxpayer to file an appeal when an objection to the 143(2) notice wasn’t raised earlier.
Gujarat High Court held that delay in filing of Income Tax Return due to technical glitches is duly condonable. Accordingly, order quashed and remanded back with direction to file return claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act.
