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...
In the present case the Chief Commissioner of Income tax is not the officer specified in section 151 of the Act. There is thus a breach of requirement of section 151(2) of the Act regarding sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned notice and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to succeed.
In order to decide whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Section 11, it is necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether it satisfy the requirement of Section 11 (4A).
The factual position in the present case is not any different and thus, we allow the present petition and direct the respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 20.11.2019.
FCI OEN Connectors Limited Vs DCIT (Kerala High Court) e-proceeding facility that was introduced as part of the Government initiative towards e-Governance, in the Income Tax Department, was not made mandatory for proceedings initiated against assessees in Kochi city. Save for the assessees in the seven metro cities specified, of which Kochi is not one, […]
Tribunal/CESTAT is utterly unjustified in rejecting the appeal before it on a hyper-technical ground i.e. an apparent defect in the appeal format. Ordinarily a judicial tribunal – like CESTAT is expected to permit rectification of such an obvious error; that it instead chose to dismiss the appeal altogether is shocking to say the least.
M/s. Aadinath Industries & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner in that case had also filed the TRAN-I Form within the prescribed period. However, on account of an inadvertent error, the columns had not been correctly filled up and consequently, the ITC was not granted to the petitioner. The […]
Thus, we direct the respondent to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-I Form electronically, or to accept the same manually with correction, on or before 20.09.2019.
MEIS benefit available even if concerned box not checked in shipping bill: In a case where the exporter did not check the concerned box in the shipping bill to read ‘Yes’ against the query with regard to intention to claim MEIS benefit, but in the column meant for description had clearly indicated his intention to avail the benefit of the said export promotion scheme, Kerala High Court has directed the department to consider claim for benefit under MEIS.
Uninav Developers Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India And Ors (Delhi High Court) It was held that the entire GST system is still in a trial and error phase and it will be too much of a burden to place on the assessees to expect them to comply with the requirement of law where they […]
Smeara Enterprises Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) In case of detention of goods, where the assessee had paid 10% of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed. We find force in the above said contention. Subsection (7) of S.107 provides […]
