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Goods and Services Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed ...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 Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings issued beyond three years for AY 2018-19 were invalid because approval wa...
Goods and Services Tax : Telangana High Court granted bail in a GST fake ITC case involving alleged wrongful availment of Rs.21.89 crore credit. The Court ...
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 a penalty notice and order under Section 271DA for violating Section 269ST, holding the proceedings were time-barred. Following the K. Umesh Shetty precedent, the Court ruled that the delay between the AO’s reference and the penalty notice constituted unreasonable laches, vitiating the entire action.
Upholding the sanctity of concluded proceedings, the Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge, holding that the Checkmate Services judgment on PF/ESI contributions cannot retroactively invalidate a prior ITAT order. The key takeaway is that the ITAT’s power under Section 254(2) is limited, and a later change in law is not a ground to disturb a settled matter.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the Revenue’s petition, affirming that the ITAT correctly refused to rectify its concluded order using the later Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services. The ruling emphasizes that Section 254(2) is only for mistakes apparent from the record, and a subsequent change in law cannot reopen a finalized judicial adjudication.
The Court held that the entire series of reassessment actions, including the final assessment and penalty notices, were bad in law because the initiating notices were issued by the wrong authority, violating Section 151A. This quashing emphasizes the mandatory nature of the faceless assessment protocol, unless the Supreme Court later validates the department’s action.
Judicial precedent from Karnataka HC confirms that Assessing Officer must provide not less than seven days to an assessee to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). Failure to comply renders the notice and all subsequent reassessment steps, including the order and penalty notice, invalid.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the PCIT’s rejection of a condonation delay application for late online Form 68 filing. The court adopted a justice-oriented view, directing a fresh, liberal reconsideration, as the taxpayer’s manual compliance was timely and the error was bona fide.
Madras HC rules that mere delay in paying admitted tax isn’t ‘wilful evasion’ under S276 C(2) Prosecution requires intent; payment before cognizance disproves mens rea.
Karnataka High Court quashes all reassessment notices and orders issued under the faceless scheme for being outside the permissible scope of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act. This ruling voids notices due to a lack of statutory jurisdiction, though the Revenue is allowed to seek a revival if the Supreme Court later rules in its favor.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, declaring the reassessment order and all related penalty notices for AY 2016-17 invalid because the initial proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdictional approval under Section 151A. The judgment underscores the critical nature of procedural integrity in faceless assessments, reserving the right for the department to reinstate the case based on a future Supreme Court ruling.
Karnataka High Court quashed reassessment notices and orders for AY 2019-20, ruling they were issued without proper jurisdiction and violated the framework of Section 151A. This decision voids the proceedings due to a jurisdictional defect, granting the Revenue liberty to revive the case only after the Supreme Court’s final decision.
