Read about the Delhi High Court’s clarification on the period of limitation for claiming tax refund under the correct head, impacting DMI Alternatives’ case against CGST Appeals.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of Kalpana Cables Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner, Department of Trades and Taxes & Anr clarifies that taxpayer registration cannot be retrospectively cancelled without valid reasons. Learn more.
Surinder Kumar Garg vs Union of India Revenue Secretary – Detailed analysis of Delhi High Court judgment setting aside GST order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim.
Delhi High Court issues notice to decide if providing a corporate guarantee by a holding company to a subsidiary is taxable under CGST Act. Learn more about Sterlite Power Transmission Ltd. v. Union of India.
Delhi High Court directs Canara Bank to comply with instructions to vacate attachment on the cash credit account of the petitioner under the GST Act. Read the full judgment here.
Delhi High Court dismisses PIL challenging Arvind Kejriwal’s authority as CM, citing publicity stunt. Detailed analysis reveals court’s decision and legal intricacies.
CIT – International Taxation Vs Qualcomm Incorporated Vs (Delhi High Court) Once a responsible officer of Department becomes aware of order, period of limitation would commence form that point in time
The judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of Ireo Fiveriver Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Department & Anr. underscores the importance of upholding the sanctity of approved Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. It reaffirms that once a resolution plan is approved, the successful resolution applicant cannot be subjected to additional liabilities arising from periods preceding the approval.
Department argued that it had not received the ITAT’s order through proper channels, thus absolving itself of responsibility. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that once the Department became aware of the ITAT’s order, it was obligated to comply within the stipulated time frame.
Delhi HC explains why NFAC cannot invoke Section 144B of the Income Tax Act if a claim is not lodged within the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) timeframe. Detailed analysis based on M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre.
