The Court ruled that recovery of tax without supplying the assessment order lacks authority of law. Refund with interest was directed unless the order is traced and served by a specified date.
Delhi High Court held that issues relating to debt and fraud is within the jurisdiction of NCLT to be determined in accordance with IBC. Resultantly, the power of a civil court to entertain the present suit is, therefore, statutorily barred. Accordingly, the plaint is rejected.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated once an assessment is conclusively closed. Supreme Court directions on reassessment notices were found inapplicable to finalized cases.
The court affirmed disciplinary action where an auditor failed to detect ever-greening of assets and misreporting in audit accounts. The ruling confirms that serious audit lapses justify temporary removal from professional rolls.
The Court examined rejection of a liquidation claim for non-filing of originals. It held that the claimant should be given time to submit documents before final consideration.
Delhi High Court held that mere delay in the pronouncement of a judgment, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate the decision of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT]. Accordingly, judgement of DRAT upheld and petition dismissed.
The Court examined whether payments for live sports telecast amount to royalty. It ruled that without recording or re-telecast rights, live feed payments lack enduring benefit and are not taxable as royalty.
The court held that reopening an assessment on the same facts amounts to an impermissible change of opinion. Arbitrary second reassessment notices were quashed with ₹1 lakh costs imposed to deter harassment.
The Court upheld deletion of a major addition, holding that valuation under Section 56 must follow the prescribed rles and not unrelated transaction prices.
Delhi High Court held that recalling bail order in GST evasion on account of clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka denied since there is no perversity in the order. Further, there is nothing to show that he is a flight Risk or there is any likelihood of his influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence.
