Delhi High Court has refuses to set aside re-assessment notice U/s. 147/148 issued by Income Tax Department to the partnership firm Sky Light Hospitality, in which Robert Vadra is a partner, in connection with the DLF- Sky Light Hospitality land deal.
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
While hearing the case between Cellular Operators Association of India vs Union of India, the Delhi High Court rejected the claim to allow credit of the unutilized education and higher education cess.
Education Cess was being levied on Central Excise and Service Tax from 10.09.2014. Education Cess paid on the purchase was available as a credit against payment of education cess on payment on the output removal.
A perusal of the Regulation 39(2) in itself shows that the council has been granted a discretion to revise the marks obtained by the candidates in any particular paper/papers or aggregate, as may be considered necessary for maintaining the standards of passed percentage
While upholding the compounding guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), a division bench of the Delhi High Court held that the amount of compounding fee can be more than the principal amount if there is willful default in the payment of tax on the part of the assessee.
Belated cross-objections– by over four years, in the opinion of the Court, meant that the appellants were seeking to rake up stale issues for which they had accepted the finality as regards their tax liability.
The notification notifying ICDS is contrary to the settled law since its implementation would nullify the judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This method of overriding the binding decision of Courts by the executive was contrary to law explained in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Limited v. Broach Borough Municipality (1969) 2 SCC 283.
M/S Atv Projects (India) Ltd Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Under the newly enacted Section 4(b) there are only two classes of persons, namely (i) those persons in whose cases schemes were sanctioned and (ii) those persons in whose cases the schemes were pending. In the former, there are two sub-classes […]
High Court of Delhi held Section 9(2)(g) of Delhi VAT Act to the extent it disallows Input tax credit to purchaser due to default of selling dealer in depositing tax, as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India.
