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...
The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. A controversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with the revenue implementing Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 providing for assessment of income which is partly agricultural and partly business income.
PCIT Vs Delhi International (Karnataka High Court) Facts- Assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) read with 153A, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The AO made certain additions and demanded tax thereon. The said assessment orders were challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the […]
It is held that the petitioner assessee deductee is entitled to credit of the tax deducted at source with respect to amount of TDS for which Form No.16A issued by the employer deductor. Also held that the department is precluded from denying the benefit of the tax deducted at source by the employer during the relevant financial years to the petitioner.
Held that the retrospectivity of tax or its collection brought in by the Finance Act 16 of 2011 is not controlled by the validation clause in section 12 of that Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The dispute in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the petitioners claims for budgetary support under a ‘Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax’ regime on the ground that the claims were made for the period prior to the GST registration which is impermissible.
there seems to be a consistent view that if there is substantial compliance, denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit which is a beneficial scheme and framed with the larger public interest of bringing down the cascading effect of multiple taxes ought not to be frustrated on the ground of technicalities. In view of the above, we are inclined to affirm the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the petitioner/ respondent to enable the respondent herein to file a revised Form TRAN-1, by opening of the portal and that such exercise is to be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of issue this order.
There is no dispute that unaccounted cash and jewellery and valuables were recovered during the course of search conducted at the premises of the petitioner and the petitioner’s associates. These assets have to be taxed in the hands of the petitioner. To assess tax on the assets seized from the petitioner, there is no necessity for extending the petitioner the benefit of cross examination of witnesses.
‘Common Parlance Test, ‘Marketability Test; ‘Popular Meaning Test’ were tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on the proper classification of tariff entry. Therefore, ‘manufactured sand’ would certainly fall under the entry ‘sand’, as it stood during the relevant period. The Notification dated 31.03.2015 was only clarificatory and that would not disentitle assessee to claim the reduced rate of tax at 5/5.5% under Entry 83 of the Third Schedule of the KVAT Act.
S.J.Suryah (a.k.a. S.Justin Selvaraj) Vs S. S. Chakravarthy (Madras High Court) Facts- According to appellant, the credit for the story, screenplay and dialogue pertaining to the film ‘Vaalee’ was given to him. The appellant argued that the Trial Court had erred in granting interim injunction, merely because the Petitioner could not produce the written agreement […]
Bombay High Court held that for an assessment to be reopened beyond a period of four years there must an omission or failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and should not merely be the change of opinion of Assessing Officer (AO).
