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 held that a 21-year-old woman cannot be compelled to return home or marry against her wishes, treating residence, marria...
Corporate Law : The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for delivering judgments since every judicial orde...
Corporate Law : The article argues that failure to comply before the AO or CIT(A) can lead to adverse assessments, as higher forums generally cann...
Corporate Law : The Bombay High Court held that merely organising protests or morchas against government decisions cannot justify externment. It r...
Corporate Law : The Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody attracts constitutional liability under Article 21, even if ca...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
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...
Income Tax : Bombay HC quashed Section 148 notices, holding that search-based material required proceedings under Sections 153A/153C, not Secti...
Income Tax : Karnataka HC held Section 147 reopening invalid where seized material from a third-party search required proceedings under Section...
Income Tax : Gujarat HC quashed reassessment and penalty orders issued against a deceased person, holding proceedings concluded against a dead ...
Corporate Law : Andhra Pradesh HC held that AI-generated fake citations alone do not invalidate a judicial order if the correct legal principles a...
Income Tax : Bombay HC quashed Section 148 reopening for AY 2013-14, holding Section 43CA was inapplicable and stamp duty valuation alone could...
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...
During the scrutiny of the petitioner’s monthly return, it was found that there was a short payment of taxes due to excess claim of Input Tax Credit and alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B.
Madras High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for examination of disputed questions of facts since entire basis of assessment order is on the basis of erroneous/ non-existent facts.
Madras High Court held that non-provision of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as opted by the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order passed is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period as stipulated under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act is not permissible. Accordingly, notice issued beyond time limit set aside.
Madras High Court held that since petitioner failed to reply to notice nor attended the personal hearing, it is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and post deposit of the tax an opportunity of being heard will be granted.
Delhi High Court held that adjudication proceedings under Customs Act, 1962; the Finance Act, 1994 and Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 cannot be kept pending for years and decades together.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 and the impugned recovery notice dated 05.05.2023 passed by the respondent for the assessment year 2017-2018.
It is mainly contested that invocation of jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the Act as there was no suppression of facts by the petitioners.
Kerala High Court held that rejection of the application for refund on the ground that the second application filed by the petitioner was beyond the time specified in sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be sustained in law.
Madras High Court held that as requested by the petitioner, an opportunity of heard will be granted on payment of deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount since petitioner failed to respond to notice in DRC-01.
