Delhi High Court held that retrospective applicability of Transport and Marketing Assistance Scheme is impermissible in law. Thus, notification of foreclosure of the Scheme dated 25.03.2022 shall have no application for exports effected between 01.04.2021 and 08.09.2021.
Delhi High Court held that license for EOU issued by DoC i.e. Department of Commerce is not equal to industrial License to be issued by the DPIIT. Accordingly, writ petition by the bidder is dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that outsourcing solutions including transaction processing services and Internet/voice-based customer care services for its clients to subsidiary in India doesn’t result in creation of Permanent Establishment [PE] in India under India-USA DTAA.
The High Court rejected the challenge to reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It held that the issue was already settled against the assessee.
The High Court held that Fringe Benefit Tax and Section 14A disallowance cannot be added while computing MAT under Section 115JB. The ruling confirms that only adjustments expressly permitted by law can alter book profits.
Delhi High Court held that bail application in fraudulent investment scheme is allowed since the applicant has satisfied the twin conditions as envisaged under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Accordingly, the bail application is admitted.
Delhi High Court held that application of income tax department for release of FDR towards tax liability not entertained until conclusion of trial under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] since PMLA has an overriding effect over the provisions of Income Tax Act.
The court ruled that insisting on a flat 20% deposit to grant stay is illegal, holding that authorities must exercise discretion under Section 220(6) after considering merits and hardship.
Neither the RPWD Act nor the Mental Healthcare Act addressed guardianship for comatose persons. The Court held that constitutional powers can be exercised to secure care, dignity, and asset management.
The Delhi High Court held that sponsorship payments included consideration for worldwide use of event trademarks. The ruling confirms that such rights constitute royalty liable to withholding tax.
