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 criticizes Pune Police for copying FIR from private complaint, highlighting legal implications and citizen harassment is...
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 : 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...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC orders fresh adjudication in Swadhin Bose vs. CGST case due to improper consideration of the appellant’s response an...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court overturns GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns, setting conditions for restoration....
Income Tax : Rajasthan HC dismisses writ against Section 153C notice post-assessment, advising the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies inst...
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...
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...
M/s. Kone Elevators (India) Pvt. Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Undoubtedly, the assessee had not submitted the ratification certificate to be obtained from the CBDT for claiming exemption under Section 10B of the Act. However, there are certain confusions even within the Department Officials regarding production of such ratification certificate from the CBDT. The […]
Director Identification Numbers (DINs) of assesses-director allotted under Rule 10 of the Companies (Appointments and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014, were not liable to be deactivated or cancelled solely for the reason that assesses-director stood disqualified for appointment / reappointment as Directors of Companies by operation of Section 164(2).
mere legal ownership will not be enough to fasten liability on the assessee in respect of the market value of the seized assets even though the said seized assets belong to the assessee. The Court held that on the valuation date the right of the assessee was in jeopardy and therefore having regard to the definition of net wealth and asset as appearing in Section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in estimating the value of such asset.
Vishwataj Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: In present case, the Hon’ble high court held Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in a routine manner, when dispute pertains to examination of facts and when there is alternative efficacious remedy available. Held: The assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the […]
Commissioner Vs National Remote Sensing Agency (Telangana High Court) the only issue which this Court is now required to consider is as to whether the respondent-NRSA had any intent to evade service tax on its activities during the period 16.07.2001 to 31.03.2005 and on advances received during the period 16.06.2005 to 31.12.2005, justifying the action […]
Usage of word ‘may’ under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) could not absolve the Revenue (the Respondent) from the obligation cast upon it to consider the request made for grant of personal hearing. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Respondent without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee shall be set aside.
Chen Hsui Yun Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Delhi High Court) In the instant case, according to the respondent, amount of USD 90000 was recovered from the petitioner which was around Rs.65,00,000/- in Indian currency. The petitioner in the instant case is a lady, aged about 54 years, and there is nothing on record to […]
As the law required that an enquiry be held under Section 202 of the Code if the accused stayed outside the Court’s jurisdiction, such enquiry had to be undertaken in clear terms and the Trial Court, after making such enquiry whether by taking evidence on affidavit or by restricting the enquiry to examination of documents or not, was required to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused.
Competition Commission of India had allowed to investigate against Flipkart and Amazon for alleged involvement in Anti-competitive Agreements. An order directing investigation be supported by ‘some reasoning’ (CCI Vs. SAIL para 97), which the Commission had fulfilled. Therefore, it would be unwise to prejudge the issues raised by Amazon and Flipkart in these writ petitions at this stage and scuttle the investigation.
Nillesh Parrekh Vs Assistant Director (Calcutta High Court) The Enforcement Directorate (ED) happens to be the specialised financial Investigating Agency under the Department of Revenue, which is entrusted to enforce the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). As such, it will be utterly fallacious to suppose that only the Director […]
