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...
High Court states that if bank guarantee is deposited within prescribed time, then the proceedings taken out under section 129(3) of GST Act shall stand concluded in view of the provisions of section 129(5).
Since there was no employer-employee relationship between the assessee on one hand and the doctors on the other hand to whom the free samples were provided, the expenditure incurred for the same cannot be construed as fringe benefits to be brought within the additional tax net by levy of fringe benefit tax.
CIT (TDS) Vs Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Whether provisions of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will be applicable in case of discounts given by the assessee to the distributors on account of prepaid SIM cards. Section 194H of the Act deals with commission or brokerage. It says that any person, […]
Before penalizing the assessee by making him pay interest, the principles of natural justice ought to be complied with before making a demand for interest under sub section (1) of Section 50 of the GST Act. Consequence of demanding interest and non-payment thereof is very drastic.
It was held that whether the purchases were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus was essentially a question of fact. When the Tribunal had concluded that the assessee did make the purchase, as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered by such purchase but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax.
Sunita Palta & Ors. Vs. Kit Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Non-Executive Directors are, therefore, persons who are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the running of the company and are not in charge of and not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.’ Admittedly, the petitioners are neither the […]
All India Federation of Tax Practitioners Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of […]
The Petitioner relied upon Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and submitted that the Respondent should examine the trademark applications in an efficient and proper manner in order to ensure that none of the marks which are brought before the Respondent are similar to that which are already registered and not clear for advertisement.
Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Budgetary Support Scheme – Plea of Promissory Estoppel not enforceable Facts – Petition filed against the Budgetary Support Scheme. Case of the Petitioner is that the erstwhile area based exemptions got rescinded with the introduction of the GST Regime w.e.f. 1.7.2017. Though Budgetary Support Scheme […]
Since there was absolutely no material that Revenue had failed in strictly adhering the limitation period under Regulation 20(7) of CBLR, 2013 and it was not the Revenue, who kept the file, without passing the final order under Regulation 20(7) within the 90 days limitation period and it had been kept pending only at the instance of the Respondent/Licensee, therefore, the matter was remitted back to CESTAT for fresh consideration only on the merits of the issue, not on the ground or point on limitation under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013.
