Pr. CIT Vs DLF Commercial Projects Corporation (Delhi High Court) Neither the provisions of section 194C nor section 194J obliges the person making the payment to deduct anything from contractual payments such as those made for reimbursement of expenses, other than what is defined as “income”. The law thus obliges only amounts which fulfil the […]
Mr. Mittal points out that the calculation of the interest payable for delayed payment of GST as determined by the Respondent is erroneous. According to him, interest has been calculated even on the amount constituting the input tax credit which is in fact to be adjusted against the tax liability. He states that on the actual tax liability, interest has been paid by the Petitioner. He further states that against the total tax liability of Rs.3.31 crores the interest liability works out to 8.19 crores which makes it unreasonable and erroneous.
Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) In the present case all the material that was necessary for the AO to form an opinion regarding the transaction involving the Assessee and PACL was already available with the AO. There was no fresh tangible material on the basis of which the AO could […]
Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the opinion that the AO had to necessarily apply his/her mind to the application for stay of demand and pass appropriate orders having regard to the extant directions and circulars including the memorandum of 29.02.2016. This in turn meant […]
Government cannot exercise powers under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, prior to statute itself coming into force.
Bhargava Motors Vs UOI (Delhi High Court) In the present case also the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner‟s difficulty in filling up a correct credit amount in the TRAN-1 form is a genuine one which should not preclude him from having his claim examined by the authorities in accordance with law. A direction is […]
In the High Court of Delhi in case of ON QUEST MERCHANDISING INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI. Held Section 9(2)(g) of Delhi Vat Act, 2004 requiring that the ITC will be allowed subject to the payment of tax by the selling dealer. Held that it was violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Purchasing Dealer has paid the entire tax amount to the selling dealer
Sonka Publication (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) In this case, a question to be asked is whether the books in question merely help the child in improving the child‘s handwriting by providing space in a book by copying from a written text or does it pose questions to […]
It is directed that the Respondents shall not, without prior intimation to this Court, proceed to appoint persons to the GST Appellate Tribunal till the next date.
Clix Capital Services (P.) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that further to the previous directions, the Form GSTR-3B filed manually has since been processed and the notional demand in respect of Rs.16.80 crores has been reversed. It is submitted that in these circumstances, […]
