Non-disclosure of information of allegations of sexual harassment would fall clearly within the conspectus of human rights violations, as exempted by the proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Explore the Delhi High Court judgment on Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for AY 2014-15. Detailed analysis and legal insights on inaccurate particulars. Read more.
Explore the Delhi High Court case: Indusind Bank vs. Dept. of Trade & Taxes. Constitutional validity of DVAT Act’s ‘dealer’ definition challenged. Court analysis and decision detailed.
Delhi High Court upholds the decision of Disciplinary Committee of ICAI holding petitioner guilty of professional misconduct as cheques given by Society in good faith were inappropriately encashed.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s ruling in PCIT vs. B.L. Kashyap. Learn why CIT cannot extend Section 142(2C) Audit report submission time; crucial insights revealed.
he court examines Section 69A, emphasizing that it deals with unexplained money and requires the owner to maintain books of account. Notably, the respondent, being a non-resident Indian, is not obligated to maintain such books in India. The court acknowledges this prima facie and agrees to keep the question open for future deliberation.
Delhi High Court dismisses Bholi Kumar’s writ petition challenging Income Tax Act’s section 148A(d) order. Meager amount prompts Revenue to abandon the case.
Explore the Delhi Metal Company vs Pr Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax case where GST registration cancellation faces technical glitches. Read the detailed judgment and analysis.
Delhi High Court’s interim relief to Metal One Corp. by staying GST Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) show cause notices. Analysis of tax liability on salaries paid to seconded employees.
Assessee had not been able to make out a prima facie case in its favour and had a ‘lot to answer’ in the appeal. Assessee’s plea of financial stringency based on its balance-sheet also inspired no confidence as according to AO, the accounts had not been properly maintained, therefore, assessee’s application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order was rightly dismissed.
