Delhi High Court held that in respect of Special Audit remuneration under section 142(2D) of the Income Tax Act invocation of provisions of MSMED Act not tenable and completely misplaced. Accordingly, the Income Tax Act would thus prevail over the provisions of the MSMED Act.
Delhi High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on an abettor without any mens rea is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court under its inherent power under section 482 of Cr. P.C. quashes the FIR as no criminality appears to have been done on the part of the petitioners. Criminal colour has been given to the civil dispute.
Delhi High Court held that subsidy received from Government of Goa for establishing an industrial unit in a backward area is capital receipt. Further, as subsidy was not intended to meet part of cost of assets, no adjustment against cost of asset could be ordered.
Delhi High Court held that as Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 doesn’t include ‘professional activity’ of lawyers as ‘commercial activity’. Accordingly, under the DMC Act there is no power to tax ‘professional activity’ carried out from residential building.
Read the full text of the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sinha vs ACIT, where the Delhi High Court sets aside the assessment order and notices issued under the Income Tax Act, directing a re-examination of the material provided by the petitioner and a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer.
The Delhi High Court overturns a previous ruling, stating that participants can challenge the result of an audit. Learn about the Court’s rationale and its implications for the future.
The Delhi High Court has granted a favorable judgment for GST refunds by excluding the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, in the calculation of the limitation period.
Dive into the Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Ohmi Industries Asia vs Assistant Commissioner, which paves the way for GST refunds on Market Research Services.
Delhi High Court quashes a ₹10 crore tax demand, stating that an assessment order cannot be solely issued against one of the multiple legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer.
