The Delhi High Court held that a reassessment notice without physical signature remains valid when the name and designation of the Assessing Officer are clearly mentioned. The Court ruled that Section 282A(2) recognizes such authentication in the digital era.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained on changing allegations introduced after issuance of notice under Section 148A(b). The Court ruled that reopening must rest only on the original reasons disclosed to the assessee.
The Delhi High Court held that an adjudication order passed by an officer who never personally heard the assessee violates principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that “one who hears must decide” and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Delhi HC held that a taxpayer can legally carry on business through a mobile phone in addition to the registered principal place of business.
The Delhi High Court applied the doctrine of forum conveniens and held that even if a small part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, the matter should be pursued before the appropriate jurisdictional High Court.
Delhi HC held that proviso to Section 45 of PMLA grants discretionary relief to women accused and stringent twin bail conditions would not ordinarily apply unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The Delhi High Court held that material recovered during a search can validly form the basis of reassessment proceedings even if the search is later alleged to be illegal. The Court ruled that proceedings initiated on the basis of such material do not automatically become void.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid where the Assessing Officer sought to make the same additions already annulled by the CIT(A). The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision quashing the reassessment order.
The Delhi High Court held that consultancy and recruitment support services provided to foreign universities qualify as export of services under GST. The Court ruled that incidental involvement of Indian students does not convert such services into intermediary services.
The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that procedural defects should not obstruct substantive justice where no serious prejudice is caused.
