Delhi High Court held that license for EOU issued by DoC i.e. Department of Commerce is not equal to industrial License to be issued by the DPIIT. Accordingly, writ petition by the bidder is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that section 25(4) of the Customs Act is declared as arbitrary and contrary to section 25(1) and (2A) of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.
Delhi High Court held that outsourcing solutions including transaction processing services and Internet/voice-based customer care services for its clients to subsidiary in India doesn’t result in creation of Permanent Establishment [PE] in India under India-USA DTAA.
The High Court rejected the challenge to reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It held that the issue was already settled against the assessee.
The High Court held that Fringe Benefit Tax and Section 14A disallowance cannot be added while computing MAT under Section 115JB. The ruling confirms that only adjustments expressly permitted by law can alter book profits.
Karnataka High Court provides guidelines for arriving at differential tax amount due to change in tax regime from VAT to GST on works contract executed with various State Government agencies.
The High Court held that criminal prosecution for delayed TDS payment cannot survive where sanction is granted mechanically without examining explanations and mitigating circumstances.
Madras High Court held that JDA executed in 1994, however, sale/ transfer of capital asset was taken place only in March 1999 when the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, capital gain was rightly offered for AYs 1999-2000 and hence exemption u/s. 54 rightly claimed.
Delhi High Court held that bail application in fraudulent investment scheme is allowed since the applicant has satisfied the twin conditions as envisaged under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Accordingly, the bail application is admitted.
The enquiry proceeded on bribery though the complaint spoke only of excessive fees. The Court held that punishment without a matching charge violates natural justice and must be quashed.
