AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The IBBI upheld its right to deny RTI requests seeking compilation of fresh datasets on insolvency claims and haircuts, holding that public authorities are not obligated to generate non-existent records.
Khaitan & Co represented RR Kabel in acquiring optical fibre business of U M Cables via slump sale, advising on structuring and tax implications.
Khaitan & Co advised ANTA Sports on securing government approval under Press Note 3 of 2020 for its indirect acquisition of 29.06% in PUMA SE, a transaction involving cross-border investment from a neighboring country.
NCLT Chennai approved a ₹3.75 crore shareholder exit under Section 242 and permitted consequential capital reduction.
NCLAT dismissed a liquidator’s plea to obtain a fresh fixed deposit receipt as collateral against a bank guarantee issued to Customs.
NCLT Mumbai waived shareholder and creditor meetings in HSBC’s scheme due to unanimous consent, streamlining the approval process.
Rajasthan High Court ruled that an oral agreement between companies cannot be the sole basis to reject a plaint under Section 21 of the Limitation Act.
Prof. Feroz Ali launches free online treatise 'Ali on Patents', offering authoritative patent law commentary and judicial analysis. The resource excludes AI-generated content and is aimed at practitioners, judges, and students.
ITAT Delhi deleted penalties under Sections 271D and 271E for delayed reference after assessment completion, citing CBDT circulars.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹26.98 lakh addition under Section 56(2)(x) as stamp duty valuation was within 10% of consideration for AY 2018-19.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions on unexplained investments and allowed ₹2.77 crore interest deduction, rejecting department’s lack of counter-evidence.
ITAT Jaipur condoned a 150-day delay in filing Section 12AB and 80G applications, remanding for fresh consideration despite procedural rejection by the AO.
ITAT Jaipur deleted an income tax addition of ₹22.19 lakh, holding that the disputed transaction was a purchase, not a sale, due to incorrect interpretation of property records by the AO.