The Delhi High Court rejects the regularization plea of Kanchanjunga building employees, upholding the Industrial Tribunal’s decision on employer-employee relationship.
In a recent ruling Delhi HC quashed the order cancelling the registration of CGST after considering the report of GST-Inspector who observed that he firm was in fact functioning at the registered place of business and that sufficient stocks of goods had also been maintained.
Delhi High Court held that proviso to section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act doesn’t mean that if gains are not included as book profits u/s. 115JB, the same are liable to be included as income for purpose of assessment of tax under normal provisions.
Delhi High Court held that inordinate delay of 9 years in prosecuting the case is not justified since the same is much beyond the time limit prescribed under section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, delay not condoned and hearing notice quashed.
Analysis of Delhi High Court’s decision on JDT Islam Orphanage’s challenge to EPF Tribunal’s order on mess employment and applicability of EPF Act provisions.
Delhi HC dismisses Yash Pal Ashok’s petition against recovery proceedings under the EPF Act, upholding the actions of the Recovery Officer.
Lotus Herbals Private Limited Vs Employees’ Provident Fund Organization And Ors. (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Lotus Herbals Private Limited challenging a notice under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). The petitioner contended that the […]
Delhi High Court held that there was no occasion for respondent to terminate service of petitioner since petitioner failed to establish that respondent is an ‘industry’ and there existed employer employee relationship between them.
Delhi High Court held that since petitioner has been exonerated in departmental proceedings, the criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. Accordingly, FIR quashed.
The court held that the other three companies were also carrying out large-scale projects compared to assessee, making them unsuitable for comparison or setting industry standards.
