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 High Court grants a final opportunity to a business owner to comply with WBGST Sec. 28(1) after non-compliance led to the...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC directs GST registrant to file delay condonation application under Limitation Act for appeal rejection despite pre-dep...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC overturns GST appeal dismissal, condoning the delay caused by technical issues on the GST portal. Case sent back for r...
Goods and Services Tax : Delhi HC upholds bail granted to Sanjeev Malhotra in GST fraud case, ruling against the petition for cancellation of bail....
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court rules that a Show Cause Notice without date, time, and venue for a hearing is invalid, directing a fresh adjud...
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...
No mandatory directions, much less directions, can be issued to the State Legislature to include the legal services rendered by the advocates into essential services. The directions as sought by the Petitioner cannot be issued to the State Legislature to legislate in a particular manner,
The issue under consideration is whether denial of a refund of Cenvat credit for mere non-registration of Premises is justified in law? learned Tribunal held that refund claimed by the Assessee on Cenvat Credit cannot be disallowed merely because the premises in question was not registered with the Revenue Department.
‘A woman living in the society like a wife, also has the right to live with dignity along with the right of getting the means of subsistence from her husband or the man she is living with under section 125 of Crpc Act 1973. Such cases should be interpreted taking note of the changing legislative provisions to embrace the changing reality of the man-woman relationship in society.
If the word ‘a’ as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words ‘one’ with effect from 01.04.2015 could not include plural units of residential houses, there was no need to amend the said provisions by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 which the Legislature specifically made it clear to operate only prospectively from A.Y.2015-2016.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove technical glitches and enable the TRACES portal so that petitioner can file its refund application for the excess Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) deposited by it.
The contentions of the RBI that the dispute is between the Petitioner and Respondents is not acceptable since the dispute arises out of the implementation or not of a Circular issued by the RBI. RBI is therefore directed to monitor the implementation of the Circular, including verification of whether there are Board-approved policies formulated by each of the lenders
The dream of many an Indian citizens is to get a green card in the USA or a PR in New Zealand, Australia or the UK to live the remaining years of his lives in a ‘clean’ environment, where a common man commands the same respect and rights as the privileged and his sight is […]
Calcutta High Court Allowed the Petitioner to Approach the Authorities to Make Copies of Seized Documents under Section 67(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Reply to Show Cause Notice thereafter.
The issue under consideration is whether Tribunal was correct and justified in directing the AO to allow deduction under section 80-IB(10) to assessee land owner when it had not incurred any expenses towards development or construction of the housing project?
High Court states that, however, insofar as the net refundable amount of Rs. 833,04,88,000/- is concerned, in our view, the respondents already having invoked their powers under Section 245 of the Act which action has ended with passing of the order dated 28th May, 2020, the respondents cannot withheld the admitted refundable amount of Rs. 833,04,88,000/- on the ground that the respondents may have a future demand against the petitioner arising out of the pending assessment orders.
