Delhi High Court held that the reasons disclosed for re-opening do not allude to the material that was available to the AO which persuaded him to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. Hence, prerequisite before entering the realm of reassessment/assessment proceedings not met. Accordingly, addition not sustainable.
Delhi High Court held that tax credit could not be extended to the assessee, because it had not paid tax in Thailand, i.e., that benefit under Article 23 of the Indo-Thai DTAA could only be extended in a situation where the tax had actually been paid.
Held that there is sufficient incriminating evidence about the involvement of the accused/applicant in the offence of money laundering and accordingly the bail application is dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that construing telephonic conversation of Officer with the proprietor as personal hearing is not acceptable. Hence, order passed thereon is in violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of statutory principles of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act).
Delhi High Court held that notification dated 05.04.2021 cannot be said as void in law as time for which the interim orders were operable has to be excluded from the timeframe provided in Rule 18 of of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of AntiDumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (AAD Rules).
Delhi High Court’s recent ruling addresses coaching centers in Mukherjee Nagar violating Master Plan for Delhi, 2021. Explore the judgment’s key points and implications for residents and institutes.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 35FF of the Excise Act indicates that interest would commence from the date of the order of the Appellate Authority as distinct from the making of an application which is prescribed to be the starting point insofar as Section 11BB of the Act is concerned.
Delhi High Court holds that personal hearing must be granted even if the petitioner did not opt for it in GST show cause notices. The court quashes the impugned order and show cause notice, allowing the petition.
The Delhi High Court has held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act is not valid in the absence of an allegation of failure to disclose material facts.
Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable in matter rejection of licence for Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) as statutory provision which permits the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority in terms of section 72 of the Excise Act, 2009.
