Analysis of Delhi High Court’s decision on JDT Islam Orphanage’s challenge to EPF Tribunal’s order on mess employment and applicability of EPF Act provisions.
Delhi HC dismisses Yash Pal Ashok’s petition against recovery proceedings under the EPF Act, upholding the actions of the Recovery Officer.
Lotus Herbals Private Limited Vs Employees’ Provident Fund Organization And Ors. (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Lotus Herbals Private Limited challenging a notice under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). The petitioner contended that the […]
Delhi High Court held that there was no occasion for respondent to terminate service of petitioner since petitioner failed to establish that respondent is an ‘industry’ and there existed employer employee relationship between them.
Delhi High Court held that since petitioner has been exonerated in departmental proceedings, the criminal prosecution premised on the same set of allegations cannot be permitted to continue. Accordingly, FIR quashed.
The court held that the other three companies were also carrying out large-scale projects compared to assessee, making them unsuitable for comparison or setting industry standards.
Delhi High Court held that the interest received on borrowed funds, which were temporarily held in interest bearing deposit, is a part of the capital cost and is required to be credited to Capital Work-in-Progress.
A person residing in USA desirous of transferring money to an individual or an entity in India, approaches a branch or an outlet of the assessee and transfers the money in USDs, together with the charges prescribed by the respondent-assessee.
Delhi High Court quashes GST order for Anant Wire Industries, citing non-compliance with SCN service requirements and remands case for reconsideration.
Delhi High Court allowed the petition for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since demand qualifies the test of rare and exceptional case. Thus, writ allowed.
