Tajunissa Vs Mr. Vishal Sharma (Delhi High Court) Statutory proscription engrafted in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, the Supreme Court has, in the afore-extracted passage from Mardia Chemicals, chiseled out an exception, in a case in which for example, the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or his claim […]
While computing the limitation period of 30 days prescribed under Section 138(b) N.I. Act for issuance of a valid legal notice, the day on which intimation is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque in question has been returned unpaid has to be excluded.
Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Having noted the relevant extracts of both the OM dated 27.10.2010 and the OM dated 05.12.2017, I may deal with the first issue as to whether the Court can interfere with the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LOC). In my view, even though the respondents […]
Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Hakunamatata Tata Founders (Delhi High Court) The plaintiff is a company incorporated in India. Though the plaint avers that documents showing involvement of the plaintiff, its subsidiaries and group companies in financial services including crypto currency, have been filed with the plaint, the documents with the plaint do not indicate […]
ICICI BANK Limited Vs Rashmi Sharma (Delhi High Court) In the considered view of this Court, there was no occasion at all for the Commercial Court to issue show cause notice for initiating criminal contempt against the plaintiff. Just because the photograph of the summons were sent by the plaintiff to the defendant through WhatsApp […]
PCIT (Central) Vs Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 1. Dismissing a bunch of appeals against deletion of addition u/s 68 towards Share capital/ share premium, bogus purchases and deposit in bank account, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide judgment delivered on 19.01.2022 (yesterday) has held that where the ITAT decided the matter based […]
Mohit Bansal Vs Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Delhi High Court) Facts- The petitioner was enrolled as CA on 25th January 2008. After his enrolment, vide judgement dated 23rd September 2009, the petitioner was convicted by the Trial court for the offences punishable under section 376(2)(g) read with Explanation I and section 506-II of the […]
Section 144B | Faceless Assessment- An assessee has a vested right to personal hearing and same has to be given, if an assessee asks for it. The right to personal hearing cannot depend upon the facts of each case.
HC held that once the assessee is cooperating and has submitted the relevant documents to the Revenue Department then the bank accounts and Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) of such assessee to be unblocked upon the expiry of one year from the date of imposing such restrictions.
Dharamraj Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued at the same address of the Assessee which is available in the ITD data base. The said notice was duly served as it was never received back by the Thereafter, notice under Section […]
