Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The Calcutta High Court set aside a penalty on a Customs House Agent employee, clarifying that mere negligence does not constitute abetment of smuggling under the Customs Act.
The SAFEMA Tribunal upheld a FEMA contravention related to a software import case but significantly reduced the penalties imposed on the company and its Director. This decision highlights the Tribunal's discretion in penalty assessment despite affirming compliance violations.
The Karnataka High Court ruled against the Revenue's selective challenge to an assessee's ITC computation method, emphasizing the need for consistency in tax matters.
The Delhi High Court has granted SpiceJet income tax relief amounting to ₹28.59 crores, concluding that the FCCB redemption premium qualifies as a revenue expenditure.
The Kerala High Court ruled to grant relief to GST taxpayers, disposing of petitions based on earlier judgments citing issues with Input Tax Credit during the initial GST rollout.
The Madras High Court ruled that extra duty deposit collected without legal sanction must be refunded with interest under the Customs Act.
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order quashing common GST show-cause notices for multiple tax periods. The Bench noted that the Single Judge erred by applying principles from a 2026 judgment.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed income tax reassessment proceedings initiated after April 1, 2021, citing the Revenue's concession made before the Supreme Court. The court noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on July 28, 2022, exceeding the permissible timeline.
The Karnataka High Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act to entertain the Revenue's appeal. This decision clarifies that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the assessment order.
The Madras High Court upheld penalties on CENVAT credit claims related to CVD paid through DEPB scrips for the assessment year 2003-04. The court ruled that insufficient adherence to the Central Excise Rules justified the penalties and interest.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the Income Tax Department is barred from reviving any income tax demands post-approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT. This decision reinforces the finality of the resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that the secured creditor's charge under the SARFAESI Act takes precedence over the GST Department's claims. The attachment of mortgaged property by the GST Department has been set aside, allowing secured creditors to recover their dues first.