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.
Goods and Services Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that refund arising from an unconstitutional GST levy carries a constitutional right to interes...
Corporate Law : The Allahabad High Court observed that criminal case delays are caused not only by judicial officers but also by inadequate infras...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court quashed a POCSO FIR after noting that the relationship was consensual and the parties were married with a chi...
Goods and Services Tax : You Already Filed One Refund Application… So You Cannot File Another?” Bombay High Court Says GST Law Does Not Work That Way S...
Corporate Law : The article questions why West Uttar Pradesh has been denied a High Court Bench despite contributing the majority of pending cases...
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...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Goods and Services Tax : Bombay High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without proper hearing and a reasoned order. The Court quashed th...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation under Section 11(2) should be condoned where gen...
Goods and Services Tax : Karnataka High Court held that consolidated show cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act can legally cover multiple...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 3...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gain...
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 Madras High Court held that issuing a single GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is impermissible and must be issued separately for each financial year.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision annulling the assessment after finding that statutory approval under Section 153D was granted without proper application of mind.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT s ruling that assessment orders were invalid because the approving authority granted Section 153D approval mechanically without examining the records.
The Bombay High Court invalidated reassessment proceedings because the satisfaction note was recorded with delay and lacked a mandatory Document Identification Number.
The High Court held that provisional attachment of fixed deposits cannot be ordered without recording proper reasons and satisfaction based on tangible material. Since the orders were cryptic and lacked justification, they were set aside.
The High Court set aside GST registration cancellations because the show cause notices did not propose retrospective cancellation. Authorities must clearly notify taxpayers before taking such action.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement in the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification, the Court found no ground to grant bail and there were no substantial change in circumstances had been shown.
The Bombay High Court set aside a settlement order where the department adjusted a refund of one tax period against dues of another under the MVAT Amnesty Scheme.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
While interpreting Rule 39(1)(a) to mandate distribution immediately upon receipt of invoice would lead to absurdity and conflict with the statutory scheme, as ITC could not be claimed or distributed before satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Section 16.
