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...
Kerala HC rules out compromise as a basis for quashing FIR in serious POCSO Act cases, affirming the importance of societal impact over private settlements.
Allahabad HC quashed GST orders for FY 2017-18 in A.V. Pharma Vs State of UP, citing expiry of the prescribed time limit under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
Bombay High Court implements “Rules for Video Conferencing 2022” for all courts in Maharashtra, Goa, and union territories, effective December 29, 2024.
Assessee challenged an income tax assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144. Assessee represented a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) who was Karta, Mr. M. Subramanian passed away on 15.01.2013.
Madras High Court held that it is settled law that no assessment or reassessment can be made on a dead person. Thus, order against the deceased assessee is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance against notice issued in DRC-01A, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and petitioner will be granted opportunity of being heard on payment of the amount.
Madras High Court held that due to non-compliance with notice issued under GST, the petitioner is required to deposit 25% of disputed tax and post deposit of amount, the petitioner will be granted an opportunity of being heard.
ITAT order was based on the fact that assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions.
Madras High Court held that order confirming demand due to mismatch between returns under GST set aside with condition to deposit 25% of disputed tax amount since petitioner neither replied to DRC-01 and neither attended personal hearing.
Madras High Court set aside order passed in respect of excess claim of input tax credit, due to non-appearance on the part of petitioner, with the condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. Directed to grant opportunity of being heard on payment of required amount.
