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...
ARS Steels & Alloy International Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) GST Landmark Case Law: Hon. Madras HC – Section – 17(5)(h) of CGST Act – No Reversal of ITC in Respect of Loss of Inputs During a Manufacturing Process The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of MS Billets and Ingots. […]
NFAC should follow and apply the decision of jurisdictional High Court having jurisdiction over Assessing Officer. Any relief should not be refused to assessee by NFAC merely because there was some conflicting decision of non-jurisdictional High Court.
Reviving of assessee’s case after 18 years, the Opposite Parties had acted unreasonably particularly since assessee could not have reasonably expected that the proceedings against it would be kept alive for these many years without any action being taken and also, assessee could not be expected to preserve its records for these many years and to be able to answer a SCN after 18 years.
HC set aside the order rejecting the claim of assessee that disentitled assessee from claiming MEIS Scheme benefits and held that, assessee will be entitled for such benefits and shipping bills reveal a clear intention of the assessee to avail benefit under MEIS Scheme and directs Revenue Department to grant consequential benefits within 8 weeks.
Daya Nand Pushpa Devi Vs ACIT (Allahabad High Court) Any interpretation or meaning given to the word ‘business’ in the literal parlance cannot be read into the Income Tax Act as the word ‘business’ has been defined in the Act itself. The Court has to read the statute namely the Income Tax Act to find […]
M/s Aman Auto Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) The Supreme Court in ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC 225 (supra) while dealing with the input tax credit held that the condition under which the concession and benefit is given is always to be strictly construed. It further held that in the event it […]
Court on its own motion Vs State of West Bengal and others (Calcutta High Court) There is a need to develop a mechanism whereby wasteful expenditure on purchase of medicines in different hospitals and also the medical colleges which are not required and have to be thrown in dustbin after its expiry, need to be […]
E. Palaniappan Vs ITO (Madras High Court) It is not the case of the appellant/assessee that the sugarcane in its original form could not be marketed by him. The conversion of sugarcane into jaggery is also not an essential process to make sugarcane marketable. In the decision in CIT Vs. H.G. DATE (1971) reported in […]
Re-opening of the assessment proceeding was conducted on the basis of legally valid sanction accorded by the authority under provisions of Section 151 and the same was justified as it had been initiated on the basis of the material which had given rise to reason to believe as well as escapement of assessment had been quantified by AO.
Balaji Agencies Vs Special Chief Secretary to Government (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Since the turnover of the petitioner for the 1st quarter ending 30.06.2006 was Rs.13,14,724/- which exceeded Rs.10 lakhs, the petitioner had an opportunity to apply for registration as VAT dealer. As per Rule (5) of A.P. VAT Act, the petitioner was required to […]
