The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 22.03.2024 issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the order dated 31.03.2024 issued u/s. 148A(d) of the Act.
The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Coopertief U.A (Netherlands). The return of the petitioner was picked up for scrutiny.
Delhi High Court held that telecommunication towers would not fall within the ambit of Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Thus, denial of input tax credit unsustainable in law.
Delhi High Court held that revenue/ department is not entitled to adjust the refunds granted to the petitioner against demand of tax that is stayed. Accordingly, department is directed to refund the amount due to the petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period as stipulated under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act is not permissible. Accordingly, notice issued beyond time limit set aside.
Delhi High Court held that adjudication proceedings under Customs Act, 1962; the Finance Act, 1994 and Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 cannot be kept pending for years and decades together.
Assessee argued that AO lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147/148 as the information derived from the search should had been assessed under Section 153C.
Tribunal was justified in declining capital gain exemption under Section 54F with respect to a property described as “makaan” (house) in the registered sale deed but in reality having a brick kiln construction.
It is the Petitioner’s grievance that despite the issue of classification having been settled in favour of the Petitioner, the Revenue Department is insisting on goods being released provisionally subject to Petitioner’s furnishing of bonds.
Delhi High Court held that in case of investment in two residential properties, exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act is available in respect of only one of the two residential properties. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
