The petitioner sold his residential property and based on an advise invested the sale proceed in the bonds issued by the Respondent – Power Finance Corporation in order to avail the benefit of capital gain tax exemption.
In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO‘s role.
Delhi High Court held that dismissed the petition as adequate efficacious alternative remedy is available by way of filing an appeal under section 16 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets and Imposition of Tax) Act.
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.
