RK Gupta And Son HUF Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) HC held that notice dated 19.05.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shows, that a survey report was generated vis-à-vis Varun Capital Services Ltd. The said communication also alludes to the fact that assessee had entered into share transaction with Kisna […]
Namoshivai Apparels Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) One of the questions that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the respondent can continue blocking the Input Tax Credit beyond the period of one year by unblocking if after the expiry of one year and immediately blocking it thereafter. […]
Bansal Steels Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (Delhi High Court) The petitioner had applied for cancellation of its GST registration for the first time on 04.12.2018 with effect from that date, stating that the reason for seeking such cancellation was that it had discontinued/closed its business. The said application was rejected by an […]
No Sec. 68 additions solely based on MOU found during search In Premises Of Third Party if assessee wasn’t even remotely connected to MOU
Order cancelling petitioner’s GST registration passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that right to use radio frequency spectrum or its subsequent transfer covered under Clause (j) of Section 66E which was effective from 14.05.2016. Accordingly, compensation received during Financial Year 2015-2016 not leviable to service tax.
Delhi High Court held that as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to meet the case that it was not entitled to refund as the services provided by it was as an intermediary. Matter is remanded back to Appellate Authority as the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
The respondent has since revoked the suspension of the petitioner’s registration and the same is active. It is also stated that the respondent has issued a demand notice dated 15.02.2023 under Section 73(5) raising a demand of ₹6,37,916.00/-. The said demand notice also states that in the event the demand is not paid, a Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) would be issued.
Sakshi Bahl & Anr. Vs. Principal Additional Director General (Delhi High Court) HC held that based on facts and documents summitted it is clear that the petitioners are not taxable persons. The power under Section 83 of the Act, to provisionally attach assets or bank accounts is limited to attaching the bank accounts and assets […]
Delhi High Court held that revised return as well as chartered accountant’s certificate supports the typographical error. Accordingly, OHA directed to determine correct turnover and tax liability thereon.
