AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The Madras High Court has remanded GST assessment orders related to SEZ reverse charge mechanism claims for fresh examination due to a lack of verification of critical documents.
High Courts have mandated that proper notice, reasons, and objective criteria are essential prior to canceling GST registrations retrospectively as per Section 29(2).
The ITAT Kolkata ruled that reassessment based on incorrect factual assumptions is invalid and quashed the reopening.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that goodwill from amalgamation qualifies as a depreciable intangible asset, and deleted the TP adjustment for overdue AE receivables.
The ITAT ruled that assessment passed after the taxpayer's death is invalid in law, leading to the quashing of the order and treating remaining issues as academic.
The Bombay High Court disposed of Revenue appeals below ₹50 lakh, ruling that the CBDT exception added on 20 August 2018 applies prospectively and not retrospectively.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 68 was inapplicable where shares were disclosed in an earlier year and sale proceeds were already offered as income, thus avoiding double taxation.
Calcutta High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal after the remand report confirmed that the disputed receipt was sale proceeds of investments rather than an unsecured loan. This ruling impacts the interpretation and application of Section 68.
J&K HC upheld a one-year sentence for a forest corporation official in a bribery case, establishing that the recovery of tainted money and credible testimony can substantiate convictions.
The Jharkhand High Court denied anticipatory bail to an accounting clerk accused of misappropriating ₹63 lakh under the 15th Finance Commission.
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Enforcement Directorate's authority to investigate and file an FIR under UAPA, rejecting the plea to quash the proceedings.
The DRT ruled that a Tehsildar's possession letter does not extend SARFAESI limitation periods, asserting that borrowers must act within a 45-day window.
The Kerala High Court has reinforced that the NCLT can accept additional pleadings after the reply stage in IBC cases to uphold principles of natural justice.