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 : Allahabad HC rules that GST authorities can survey business premises for verifying transactions when goods are intercepted without...
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...
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...
The powers of arrest under Section 69 of the Act, 2017 are to be exercised with lot of care and circumspection. Prosecution should normally be launched only after the adjudication is completed.
Shri Rupesh Rashmikant Shah Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court) In the context of interest, there are three crucial dates. The date of the accident is a date in reference to which the entire compensation is calculated. The date of filing of the claim petition is the date from which the claimant […]
Delhi High Court has observed that second proviso to Customs Section 110(2), stating that in case of provisional release, period of 6 months for SCN would not apply, is to make sure that at least seized goods are provisionally released quickly. The Court held that 2nd proviso, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, did not take away what was already available to assessee and hence the proviso was not applied retrospectively.
When the commission paid to the non-resident agents was neither received or deemed to be received in India nor accrued or was deemed to accrue in India, no income was chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. When the payment made by assessee to the overseas agent for services rendered abroad was not income chargeable to tax in India, there was no obligation cast upon assessee to deduct tax at source under section 195 and consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would not be attracted.
Dharmraj Prasad Bibhuti Vs ITAT, Patna (Patna High Court) Section 132 (4A) of the I.T. Act provides that where any books of Accounts, other documents, money etc. is found in possession or control of any person in course of search, it may be presumed that the same belongs to such person. It is apparent from […]
Gujarat High Court has reiterated that the power to arrest under Section 69 of the Central GST Act is to be exercised with lot of care and circumspection and that prosecution should normally be launched only after completion of adjudication. The Court directed that no coercive steps of arrest against the writ petitioner should be taken.
Ms Anusura Vs Mohit A Gupta (Gujarat High Court) Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the action on the part of the concerned authorities could be termed as absolutely high-handed and arbitrary. The facts of this case speak for themselves. […]
Raghava Constructions Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the proceedings of letter C.No. V/04/06/2019-Arrears, dated 31.07.2019, issued by 2nd respondent, pending disposal of WP.No.16885 of […]
Notice notice under section 148 being jurisdictional notice, issued to a dead person and legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of AO pursuant to impugned notice, provisions of section 292B would not get attracted and hence, notice under section 148 had to be treated as invalid.
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Allahabad High Court has held that there is no specification under Excise Rule 18 that for the purpose of rebate, goods need to be manufactured inside country. The Court held that the rule talks about any goods, which includes both manufactured inside the […]
