Delhi High Court held that Sanitaryware meant for use in the kitchen, toilets or bathroom and although it may portray some art work in its designs, it is not artwork or handicraft Therefore, duty drawback could only be claimed in category of goods falling Chapter 74 vide item No. 741802.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner was rendering advisory services to entity in Singapore. The petitioner had repeatedly filed submissions before the concerned authorities (Adjudicating Authority as well as Appellate Authority) explaining that it is rendering “advisory services to overseas group companies with respect to investment avenues in transportation sector after performing its own analysis and due diligence”.
Delhi High Court rules in the case of Movish Realtech Private Limited vs. DCIT. The court addresses the initiation of reassessment based on statements of accommodation entry providers in income tax matters.
Delhi High Court grants relief to Punjab and Sind Bank, permitting the refund of Rs.1.3 crores deposited, citing involvement of public funds. Analysis of the judgment.
Delhi High Court rules that ITAT cannot recall an order u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act after four years. Insights on CIT vs L.G. Electronics Korea.
Delhi High Court grants stay in Banyan Real Estate Fund vs. ACIT case due to discrepancies in Section 148 notice regarding incorrect allegations. Full judgment analysis.
Delhi HC directs refund of Income Tax amount exceeding 20% of the demand. Read about the Max Life Insurance case and the decision on refund for AY 2017-18
Delhi HC grants permission to a PMLA accused to travel to Canada for his son’s university admission. The court weighs family bonds and past conduct.
Delhi High Court held that a person who signed a document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them, even though he had read them or not. Here, the plaintiff has signed the MoU in token of acceptance of the terms thereof and is bound by the terms thereof, including the Arbitration Agreement.
Delhi High Court’s ruling on Vinayak Services PVT LTD vs ITO case: Section 148A(d) order quashed due to time-barred Section 148 notice. Learn more about the judgment.
