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 : 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 Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It r...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if ca...
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...
Income Tax : Bombay HC quashed Section 148 notices, holding that search-based material required proceedings under Sections 153A/153C, not Secti...
Income Tax : Karnataka HC held Section 147 reopening invalid where seized material from a third-party search required proceedings under Section...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC quashed reassessment and penalty orders issued against a deceased person, holding proceedings concluded against a dead ...
Corporate Law : Andhra Pradesh HC held that AI-generated fake citations alone do not invalidate a judicial order if the correct legal principles a...
Income Tax : Bombay HC quashed Section 148 reopening for AY 2013-14, holding Section 43CA was inapplicable and stamp duty valuation alone could...
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.
