Delhi High Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercisable in absence of any perversity in the order passed by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
The court examined whether withholding tax could be imposed solely on the basis of an alleged virtual service permanent establishment. It ruled that such a concept is not recognised under the DTAA and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Court held that insolvency proceedings do not entitle an accused to seek records under Section 91 Cr.P.C. during investigation. Documents sought to aid answers are premature and must await the charge sheet.
Delhi High Court held that reference by Council of ICAI for suspension of name of CA from register of Member for period of one year is accepted since professional misconduct of CA i.e. manipulation of public issue and ante-dated stock-investment duly established.
The Court held that Section 197 applications cannot be rejected mechanically to “protect revenue.” Mandatory factors under Rule 28AA, including past assessments and liabilities, must be examined before directing withholding.
Delhi High Court held that discrepancy in counting of notes and in some serial numbers cannot be reason for acquittal since prosecution has proved its case of recovery of counterfeit notes beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, offence u/s. 489(C) of IPC stands proved.
The Court held that once copies of DRT proceedings are supplied as un-relied documents, the accused cannot compel the investigating agency to produce original tribunal records.
The Court granted interim relief against a large GST demand on minimum balance non-maintenance charges. While adjudication may proceed, enforcement of any final order has been stayed.
The Court is examining whether show cause notices issued years after exports are barred by delay and laches. The key issue is whether such belated proceedings are legally sustainable.
The Court examined whether denial of R&D approval for earlier years was justified despite later recognition. It directed authorities to reconsider applications afresh, stressing that prior years cannot be ignored without proper reasoning.
