Delhi High Court held that rejection of Microsoft patent application for invention relating to ‘Methods and Systems for authentication of a user for sub-locations of a network location’ solely on the basis of non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 is unjustified and needs re-examination.
Delhi High Court held that CCI does not have jurisdiction over Continuing Professional Education (CPE) activities of ICAI
HC ruled that provision of services by taxpayer to its holding company, as per terms of an agreement, does not categorize service provider as an intermediary.
Delhi HC verdict on Northern India Zonal Assembly of The Mar Thoma Church’s case against Income Tax Department. The court calls for a swift resolution to a four-and-a-half-year-old appeal.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on ground that investigation has not been concluded is unsustainable as SVLDRS doesn’t exclude taxpayers in respect of whom investigation is not concluded.
Delhi High Court held that the legislative history of Section 245A of the Income Tax Act indicates that the proceedings for assessment, re-assessment and re-computation u/s. 148, prior to issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, were excluded from the scope of the definition of the term ‘case’. Literal interpretation of language of section 245A is justifiable.
Delhi High Court held that the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 coming into force from 20.10.2008 hence the amendments are not applicable to search conducted prior to effective date.
In the case being analyzed, the Delhi High Court referred to Explanation (i) to Clause (b) of Section 245A to determine whether the proceedings for assessment or reassessment had commenced for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The court concluded that based on a plain reading of the explanation, no such proceedings had commenced during those years. As a result, the court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Settlement Commission to deem the petitioner’s application under Section 245C(1) invalid for those assessment years.
Delhi High Court held that notice of proceeding under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act was required to be issued to the owner or the persons from whom the goods were seized.
Delhi High court held that attachment of bank account under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 merely on the basis of suspicion and without any tangible material is unsustainable.
