Nortel Networks India International INC. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC (Delhi High Court) 1. By way of the present writ petition, Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of within four weeks, Petitioner’s Rectification Application dated 14th May, 2020 granting the consequential TDS credit of Rs.5,51,15,908 due to the petitioner […]
Nokia India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Court finds that CBDT instruction No. 2/2013 [F. No. 225/76/2013/ITA.II] dated 5th July, 2013 and Letter [F. No.225/148/2015-ITA-II], dated 5th July, 2015 stipulates that the Assessing Officers must strictly follow the time limit of six months provided under Section 154(8) of the Act in disposing of […]
Cheil India Private Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that while filing the return of income, the Petitioner had claimed credit of TDS amounting to INR 32,14,36,286/-, whereas while processing the return, the CPC granted credit of only INR 1,83,37,658/-. He points out that the TDS was duly supported […]
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court upheld the decision of Centre to suspend FCRA registration of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative for alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA, 2010). Impugned order records the following violations of the FCRA, 2010: i. The activities / projects […]
Satish Kansal Vs Synergy Tradeco NV (Delhi High Court) Merely because there is a dispute between the buyer and the seller with regard to the contract of supply of goods, that cannot be ground for interfering with the LC. Therefore, the courts have recognized only two exceptions to the aforesaid principle where courts would pass […]
UOI Vs Aps Structures Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) It is well settled that recourse to Section 14 of the A&C Act is not available in respect of any challenge to the arbitrator under Section 12(1) of the A&C Act. Such a recourse is permissible only in the event the arbitrator is ineligible by virtue […]
Petitioner would like to press for grant of interest as ITC under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could have been blocked only for a period of one year. He emphasises that in the present case the blocking has been done for two years.
Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that withholding the rate of 10% as prescribed under the DTAA is inclusive of the applicable surcharge and cess and therefore no additional surcharge or cess is required to be imposed. This position, he submits is settled […]
Imposition of penalty is called for where the assessee fails to furnish returns by the due date, which is not the position in the present case. Admittedly, Petitioner has deposited the requisite tax for the relevant quarter of the assessment period but has inadvertently mentioned the wrong period in the challan and therefore, cannot be, in our view, saddled with the liability of penalty.
HC quashed ’SCN’ issued by Revenue Department suspending GST registration of the assessee and directed to reissue a fresh SCN with all the relevant facts and reasons within a week’s time regarding. Further, directed the Revenue Department to restore the assessee’s GST registration and issue a practice direction so that in future, if any SCN for cancellation of GST registration is issued, the same is not bereft of any material particulars or reasons.
