Delhi High Court held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of any effective inquiry and total non-application of mind by AO. Accordingly, order passed by AO erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
Held that the TPO had provided no reasons whatsoever for rejecting the TNMM as the most appropriate method. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the TPO’s decision to reject TNMM as the most appropriate method was without reasons.
Delhi High Court in The Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust India v. Www.Friendwithbooks.Co (CS(COMM) 88/2021 & I.A. 78/2023) marks a significant development in this area, addressing whether a sanyasi (renunciate) can hold copyright over literary works created by them.
Delhi High Court held that decisions causing hardship to an employee cannot be termed as an action which would amount to incitement/abetment in terms of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thus, summoning order set aside.
Delhi High Court held that passing of penalty order after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO is untenable. Thus, penalty order set aside as passed beyond time period framed u/s. 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court sets aside SCN order in Bablu Rana Vs SGST Ward-24 case, citing procedural lapses in notification and portal design compliance
Delhi High Court remands ITAT case for reconsideration on S. 153C, clarifying its applicability to searches conducted before the Finance Act 2015 amendment.
Delhi High Court rules that Section 14A disallowance doesn’t apply if no exempt income is earned. Dismisses Revenue’s appeal against Sahara India Financial Corp.
Delhi High Court held that non-issuance of Police Clearance Certificate [PCC] merely due to pendency of FIR, without any conviction or finding of guilt, constitutes an unreasonable restriction. Accordingly, court directed to issue PCC.
Delhi High Court held that rewards under informer schemes are ex-gratia payments and thus, lie within the discretion of the competent authority. Court cannot direct Government to grant a particular amount to the informant by way of an award.
