The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT s ruling that assessment orders were invalid because the approving authority granted Section 153D approval mechanically without examining the records.
The Court refused to review its earlier ruling that retrospective GST cancellation was invalid due to lack of reasons in the show cause notice and absence of prior notice to the taxpayer.
Hriday Vs ITO (Exemption) (Delhi High Court) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, decided a batch of five appeals filed by a charitable society registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010–11 to 2014–15. The appeals challenged a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) […]
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer cannot deny refund interest by attributing delay to the assessee. The decision clarified that only higher authorities specified in Section 244A(2) can determine such delay.
The High Court ruled that the CESTAT acted within its powers by remanding the case to verify certificates for service tax exemption and held that such an order did not warrant interference.
The Delhi High Court held that issuing a 15% withholding certificate without properly considering the Supreme Court’s ruling was legally unsustainable. The Court reduced the tax deduction rate to 2% for the relevant year.
The Delhi High Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing the grant of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G without examining the genuineness of the trust’s activities. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for proper inquiry.
The Delhi High Court held that continuing a lookout circular after the conclusion of tax proceedings and in the absence of any outstanding demand violated fundamental rights. The Court ruled that administrative delay in gathering foreign information cannot justify indefinite travel restrictions.
The High Court set aside an order denying additional interest under Section 244(1A), holding that it was based on a Bombay High Court judgment later reversed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that seismic survey services in connection with exploration of oil cannot be held to be in nature of Fees for Technical Services [FTS]/Royalty and hence not covered under section 44DA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
