Delhi High Court held that keeping in abeyance refund order by exercising powers conferred u/s. 108 of the CGST Act merely on the basis of intelligence regarding wrongful availment of ITC unjustified since pre-requisite conditions for invoking section 108 not satisfied.
Delhi High Court held that in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, the seized goods are required to be returned, if a notice under Section 124 of the Act is not issued within the period as prescribed.
Delhi High Court held that reference by AO to JCIT regarding non-deduction of TDS was first step for initiation of action for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, penalty order passed by JCIT levying penalty under section 271C of the Income Tax Act is barred by limitation.
Delhi High Court held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of any effective inquiry and total non-application of mind by AO. Accordingly, order passed by AO erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
Held that the TPO had provided no reasons whatsoever for rejecting the TNMM as the most appropriate method. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the TPO’s decision to reject TNMM as the most appropriate method was without reasons.
Delhi High Court in The Bhakti Vedanta Book Trust India v. Www.Friendwithbooks.Co (CS(COMM) 88/2021 & I.A. 78/2023) marks a significant development in this area, addressing whether a sanyasi (renunciate) can hold copyright over literary works created by them.
Delhi High Court held that decisions causing hardship to an employee cannot be termed as an action which would amount to incitement/abetment in terms of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thus, summoning order set aside.
Delhi High Court held that passing of penalty order after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO is untenable. Thus, penalty order set aside as passed beyond time period framed u/s. 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court sets aside SCN order in Bablu Rana Vs SGST Ward-24 case, citing procedural lapses in notification and portal design compliance
Delhi High Court remands ITAT case for reconsideration on S. 153C, clarifying its applicability to searches conducted before the Finance Act 2015 amendment.
