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 : Allahabad HC asserts that Section 498A IPC is often misused against entire families to exert pressure. Employment prospects should...
Corporate Law : The Orissa High Court ruled that voter ID alone is not reliable for determining age in insurance claims, directing LIC to reassess...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court recent judgment highlights the alarming misuse of the POCSO Act, where cases are filed due to family objections t...
Corporate Law : J&K&L High Court quashes money laundering case against Farooq Abdullah, citing absence of a scheduled offence under the Prevention...
Corporate Law : Jharkhand HC directs the state to use its Special Branch to identify illegal immigrants allegedly from Bangladesh in six districts...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Goods and Services Tax : HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA: Ramesh Kumar Patodia v. Citi Bank [WPO NO. 547 OF 2019 JUNE 24, 2022 ] Facts: ♦ Petitioner is a holder ...
Goods and Services Tax : CGST, Gurugram (Anti Evasion) Vs Gaurav Dhir (Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Courts, Gurugram) U/s 132(1)) r/w 132(1)(b)(C)(e...
Corporate Law : In order to dispense with the physical signatures on the daily orders (which are not important/final orders and judgments) of the ...
Custom Duty : Delhi High Court admits petition questioning Validity of provisions in Finance Act 2022 which overruled landmark Judgment of Supr...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that amount paid towards community services and social welfare under Memorandum of Settlement under the Ind...
Goods and Services Tax : Sri Avantika Contractors (I) Limited. Vs Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (GST) and others. (Telangana High Court) Telangana...
Custom Duty : Delhi HC reduces pre-deposit requirement for Shubh Impexs appeal in customs duty dispute over imported goods classification....
Corporate Law : Bombay HC upholds priority of Janaseva Sahakari Bank's secured interest over Sales Tax Dept’s claims, setting aside the mutation...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court quashes reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, citing procedural lapses and lack of valid grounds unde...
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...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court has exempted the Lawyers from wearing Gowns practicing in the High Court with effect from March 2, 2022 till furt...
Corporate Law : Till further orders, all documents/ not summons/Daks through physical mode be dispensed with, except where there, is a specific or...
Income Tax : Hon’ble Judges to hear the matters physically at the Principal Seat at Bombay, on experimental basis with effect from 1st Decemb...
G.S.T. registration stands restored. If the Department wants to proceed against the writ-applicant in future on any grounds, it may do so in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ-applicant.
In the present case, the impugned orders are non-reasoned orders inasmuch as dept have not considered the submissions of the Petitioner in the stay applications and thus, the discretion vested in department has not been exercised judiciously. Further, neither the Assessing Officer nor the PCIT have considered the three basic principles i.e. the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury while deciding the stay application.
PCIT Vs Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the view that the issue of rent of ‘A Barracks’ was within the knowledge of the Assessing officer when he had passed the original assessment order as well as the subsequent order under Section 154 of the Act. Consequently, this […]
Jindal Exports And Imports Private Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Impugned assessment orders are liable to be set aside as the Petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to file response to the said show cause notice-cum-draft assessment orders. Consequently, as there has been a violation of principle of natural justice, the impugned assessment orders […]
As you are aware that Arbitration is one of the best Alternate Disputes Resolution process, which saves time, money and energy of the parties. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 no where prohibits deciding of cases through arbitration.
Raghav Trading Corp Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) When this case came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the issue raised in this petition would be covered by order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal […]
Madras HC ruled that their would not be any interest liability on transitional credit claimed through TRAN-01 which was not utilized and still available in electronic credit ledger of taxpayer. Captioned ruling has been analyzed in this update.
Calcutta High Court order on Penny stock in which Department’s appeal in penny stock case has been allowed. The Orders of AO and CIT(A) have been restored. Reversed the order of ITAT. The Court Held that : 1. The assessees cannot take shelter under the opinion given by the experts as it is not the […]
Ajay Bhandari Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Reassessment — Reopening of assessment — Reopening notice issued under unammended provisions — Reliefs sought in petition is to quash impugned notice u/s 148 — Held, as per Clauses 6.2 and 7.1 of Board’s Circular dated 11.05.2022, if a case does not fall under Clause (b) […]
Stock of Exotic Live Spices was declared as per Voluntary Disclosure Scheme titled as ‘Advisory for Dealing with Import of Exotic Live Species in India and declaration of stock’ accordingly held that summon issued to the appellant by the respondent no. 3 is bad in law and illegal.
