The court declined to modify earlier directions requiring prompt payment of counsel bills, holding that procedural checks cannot justify delays and interest must be paid for late payments.
The Delhi High Court held that consolidated show cause notices covering multiple years are permissible where fraudulent availment or utilisation of input tax credit is alleged.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision annulling the assessment after finding that statutory approval under Section 153D was granted without proper application of mind.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT s ruling that assessment orders were invalid because the approving authority granted Section 153D approval mechanically without examining the records.
The Court refused to review its earlier ruling that retrospective GST cancellation was invalid due to lack of reasons in the show cause notice and absence of prior notice to the taxpayer.
Hriday Vs ITO (Exemption) (Delhi High Court) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, decided a batch of five appeals filed by a charitable society registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2010–11 to 2014–15. The appeals challenged a common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) […]
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer cannot deny refund interest by attributing delay to the assessee. The decision clarified that only higher authorities specified in Section 244A(2) can determine such delay.
The High Court ruled that the CESTAT acted within its powers by remanding the case to verify certificates for service tax exemption and held that such an order did not warrant interference.
The Delhi High Court held that issuing a 15% withholding certificate without properly considering the Supreme Court’s ruling was legally unsustainable. The Court reduced the tax deduction rate to 2% for the relevant year.
The Delhi High Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing the grant of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G without examining the genuineness of the trust’s activities. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for proper inquiry.
