The Court sought explanation for delay in operationalizing the GSTAT even after members were appointed. It directed a senior-level affidavit detailing steps to make the Tribunal fully functional.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the PCIT granted only a signature without recording satisfaction, violating the statutory requirement of prior approval.
The Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice within limitation is sufficient, and an inadvertent attachment of another assessee’s document is a curable defect, not a jurisdictional flaw.
The Court held that designation of New Delhi as the arbitration venue amounts to the juridical seat, conferring supervisory jurisdiction. Despite a separate exclusive jurisdiction clause for Jajpur courts, the Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6).
The Court quashed withdrawal of tax exemption after holding that franchise fees from affiliated schools were only incidental and not business income.
The Court held that while duty drawback is not eligible for Section 80-IC deduction, excise and customs duties paid on raw materials must be subsumed from the drawback amount. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition in a case alleging fraudulent ITC through bogus firms, holding that complex factual disputes must be examined in statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Delhi High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 67 cannot defeat a substantive claim for Foreign Tax Credit. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant FTC, observing that denial on technical grounds would amount to unjust enrichment.
Delhi High Court held that prior testimony inadmissible under section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since prosecution didn’t prove that witness is unavailability for post charge cross-examination. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
The Court quashed the TPO’s order after finding that copies of agreements relied upon were not supplied, holding that denial of such documents violated the taxpayer’s right to defend.
