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Goods and Services Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed ...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...
The amendment to Explanation 1(d) of Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effected vide Notification No. 14/2022 – Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, was prospective in nature, therefore, any claim for ITC made in respect of periods antecedent to the notification could not be sustained.
Mens rea was not essential for penalty under Section 117, revocation of the courier license was unwarranted; penalties under both Section 117 of the Customs Act and Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations were validly imposed.
Orissa High Court held that initiation of proceedings on same subject matter under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act by different tax administrations is not justifiable. Accordingly, subsequent proceedings initiated by Central Proper Officer not sustained.
Delhi High Court held that separate transfer pricing adjustment for AMP was uncalled for given that the distribution business of assessee was already benchmarked separately and the transaction was benchmarked correctly.
Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the SCN issued in FORM GST DRC-01 does not substitute the proper SCN required under Section 73(1) of both the Central and State GST Acts. Accordingly, order set aside and writ petition is allowed.
The Madras High Court set aside a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding it void under the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Court ruled that only the Faceless Assessment Officer has the authority to issue such notices. This decision reinforces the binding nature of the faceless reassessment mechanism post-notification.
The Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of a representation pending since 2014 within six weeks. The Court noted that the Department had already acknowledged the delay and must now act promptly. The ruling reinforces that prolonged inaction on taxpayer representations is unacceptable.
The Court stayed recovery proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) against the assessee’s bank accounts, noting that a stay application was already scheduled for hearing. Since the taxpayer had exercised his appellate and rectification rights, the Court found the Department’s coercive action premature. It ordered maintenance of status quo until the next hearing date. The judgment emphasizes fairness and procedural propriety in tax recovery.
The Court observed that the Income Tax Department acted without due verification in raising a demand on a deactivated PAN. Since the Department had already recognized the active PAN in earlier proceedings, the fresh demand appeared erroneous and procedurally invalid. Justice C. Saravanan granted an interim stay and sought production of the relevant assessment records. The case highlights the need for robust PAN verification before initiating recovery actions.
The Bombay High Court confirmed a 15% addition on alleged bogus purchases, rejecting the Revenue’s plea for full disallowance. The Court held that reliance solely on Sales Tax Department data, without giving the assessee cross-examination rights, violates natural justice. With concurrent factual findings by lower authorities, no substantial question of law was found to arise.
