The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gains merely because they hold all its shares. The Court reiterated that a company is a separate legal entity unless fraud or sham arrangements are proved.
The Delhi High Court held that frozen chicken supplied to the Indian Army was not exempt from GST because it was supplied in unit containers. The Court directed reimbursement of GST paid by the supplier along with interest for delayed payment.
Delhi High Court upheld the view that high-purity gold jewellery could not be absolutely confiscated merely because it fell within the category of primary gold. Redemption on payment of fine and duty was allowed.
The Delhi High Court held that the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and extends to documentary evidence in addition to oral testimony. The provision can be used whenever the evidence is essential for a just decision.
The High Court held that documents received through official international channels carry presumption of genuineness but must still satisfy proof requirements under Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the main offence and ED did not check important things like role of doctors, hospitals or end users.
Delhi High Court ordered Xiaomi entities to secure ₹272 crore because SEP implementers cannot continue exploiting standardized patented technology without furnishing interim security during FRAND disputes, even before final determination of infringement or royalty rates.
The Delhi High Court held that one of the meetings relied upon for automatic vacation of the petitioner’s seat was convened without proper notice under Regulation 142. Consequently, the ICAI communication declaring the seat vacant was quashed.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was given less than one effective working day to respond to additional queries. The Court held that such truncated timelines violated principles of natural justice.
The Delhi High Court held that a second provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act cannot be sustained when there is no change in circumstances. The Court ruled that repeated attachment orders after expiry of the first order violate the statutory safeguard under Section 83(2).
