The Delhi High Court held that continuing a lookout circular after the conclusion of tax proceedings and in the absence of any outstanding demand violated fundamental rights. The Court ruled that administrative delay in gathering foreign information cannot justify indefinite travel restrictions.
The High Court set aside an order denying additional interest under Section 244(1A), holding that it was based on a Bombay High Court judgment later reversed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Delhi High Court held that seismic survey services in connection with exploration of oil cannot be held to be in nature of Fees for Technical Services [FTS]/Royalty and hence not covered under section 44DA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Court sought explanation for delay in operationalizing the GSTAT even after members were appointed. It directed a senior-level affidavit detailing steps to make the Tribunal fully functional.
The Delhi High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the PCIT granted only a signature without recording satisfaction, violating the statutory requirement of prior approval.
The Delhi High Court held that issuance of notice within limitation is sufficient, and an inadvertent attachment of another assessee’s document is a curable defect, not a jurisdictional flaw.
The Court held that designation of New Delhi as the arbitration venue amounts to the juridical seat, conferring supervisory jurisdiction. Despite a separate exclusive jurisdiction clause for Jajpur courts, the Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6).
The Court quashed withdrawal of tax exemption after holding that franchise fees from affiliated schools were only incidental and not business income.
The Court held that while duty drawback is not eligible for Section 80-IC deduction, excise and customs duties paid on raw materials must be subsumed from the drawback amount. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition in a case alleging fraudulent ITC through bogus firms, holding that complex factual disputes must be examined in statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
