The Court held that while Section 194H applies to supplementary commission, no tax demand survives once agents have paid tax. Recovery was limited to interest under section 201(1A).
Delhi High Court held that an employee cannot be denied TDS credit due to the employer’s default in depositing deducted tax. The related demand and recovery were quashed.
The court addressed a demand arising from automated processing that led to double disallowance of expenses. It directed rectification through an amended return and stayed recovery until correction.
The Delhi High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue decided issues. The Revenue failed to show any apparent error in the earlier direction to process returns.
Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Since assessee failed to meet the mandatory eligibility conditions under Clause 4.4(ii) read with Annexure V of the RFP due to non-submission of LoAs/Work Experience Certificates. The rejection of assessee’s bid by NSIC was held to be lawful, justified, and […]
V. K. Sharma Vs JVG Finance Limited (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Appellant had failed to establish locus standi to challenge orders relating to asset realisation in liquidation and the material on record clearly demonstrated that liabilities of the company far exceeded available funds, making sale of assets necessary. Held: The company in liquidation (JVG Group) […]
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
The Court held that reassessment based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC is invalid. The key takeaway is that such amendments cannot reopen concluded assessments.
The issue was whether a Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 issued in August 2024 was time-barred. The Court held it exceeded the ten-year limit and quashed the proceedings.
The High Court held that a direct appellate challenge to the final removal order was not maintainable. The appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ against the removal order.
