Insights on the JEM Exporter vs Union of India case, where the Bombay HC overturned the denial of input tax credit due to procedural errors.
Delhi High Court held that PayPal is liable to be viewed as payment system operator and obliged to comply with reporting entity obligation as placed under PMLA
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment liable to be quashed as PCIT simply rubber-stamped the attempt of AO to reopen the assessment without inquiring about various basic issues involved in the matter like applicability of section 50C, cost of acquisition and claim of deduction u/s 54EC.
Calcutta High Court held that charges under section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 towards any knowledge of committing crime of the money used is obtained by fraudulent means cannot be pardoned before a full-fledged trial.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Analyzing the High Court case, ACIT Vs Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd., focusing on the PCIT’s ability to exercise revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s landmark decision in DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt Ltd vs JCIT (OSD) case, rejecting TDS on External Development Charges, and its implications on taxation norms
HC held that although Revenue department has discretion to cancel GST registration from a retrospective date but doing so without valid justification constitutes the arbitrary exercise of power.
HC court pointed out the baselessness of revenue’s claim that petitioner was not owner, given that the e-way bills, which are legally recognized as documents of title to the goods, were accompanying the goods in transit.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Blackberry India, stating that services, except those under Rule 3(1) of Export of Services Rules, qualify as export of taxable services. The court also found Blackberry India not to be an intermediary based on the agreement with Blackberry Singapore.
