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 : Madras High Court inTvl. Arudra Engineering Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) ruled that C-Forms cannot be deemed non...
Goods and Services Tax : Madras High Court judgment on Hajee S M Ahamed and Company vs Deputy State Tax Officer, remanding ₹25,000 GST demand and ₹1.36...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta HC reinstates GST appeal for Rahul Bansal, ruling technical glitches can't negate statutory rights to challenge orders un...
Excise Duty : Calcutta HC remands the CGST appeal to the Tribunal for reconsideration after the Supreme Court's stay of the Gujarat High Court r...
Income Tax : Calcutta High Court rules deemed dividends under Section 2(22)(e) taxable only in shareholders' hands, upholding ITAT's decision. ...
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...
Deductions either under Section 10A or 10B would be made while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking and not at the stage of computation of the total income.
When partnership firm was transformed into private limited company, there was no distribution of assets and as such, there was no transfer and therefore, assessee was not liable to pay any tax on capital gains.
In the present case there are allegations on the petitioner of having caused loss to State-Exchequer to the tune of Rs 20 crores appx. by evasion of payment of GST and he has applied for grant of interim bail, mainly on account of the prevalent conditions of spread of COVID-19 virus.
Pirna Urban Co-Oeprative Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO (Bombay at Goa High Court) The issue under consideration is the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the petitioner’s bank i.e. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., requiring the bank to remit an amount of 2,33,42,040/- as dues towards the payment of income tax by the petitioner. […]
Section 194 C of the IT Act deals with deduction of tax at source when it comes to payment to contractors. In the present case, since neither the Assessee nor M/s. Prabhu Construction can be styled as contractors, it is obvious that the provisions of Section 194C of the IT Act were not attracted. Hence Section 194C will not be invoked in this case and therefore consequently provision of sec 40(a)(ia) would also not applicable.
The issue under consideration is that the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent not to declare its pending loan accounts as Non Performing Assets (NPA). The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent for grant of moratorium of three months to it in terms of circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI).
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that RBI guidelines and package are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, in as much as, the petitioner was already in default as on 01.03.2020 and the package is applicable only to those instalments which fall due on 01.03.2020 and also only to those borrowers who were properly servicing their account till 01.02.2020 and were not in default.
Section 84A of the Gujarat VAT Act is declared as ultra vires and beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and is also declared to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of being manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive.
Bbooks of accounts were duly presented when the show cause notice was given to the assessee, and no discrepancy was found in the same, but non-presentation of the books of accounts at the time of survey cannot be the sole reason for rejection of the books of accounts.
Saluja and Company Vs State of Haryana and others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Issue- Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Mango Drink under the brand name “Slice” sold by the appellant, does not fall under Entry 100D of Schedule-C of the HVAT Act and […]
