Delhi High Court held that petitioner eligible for exemption from Central Excise Duty Notification No.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 prior to 1st July 2017 is eligible for budgetary support under Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax (GST) Regime
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence (HQRS.) Vs M/s. Spraytec India Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The proviso to Sub-Section (2) of 28-I of the Customs Act prescribes the CAAR from allowing any application filed for advance ruling, where question raised in the application is pending in the applicant’s case before “any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or […]
Delhi High Court held that Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR] expenses incurred by assessee are allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of Income Tax Act.
Louis Dreyfus Company India PVT. LTD. Vs Commissioner Trade And Tax Department & ORS. (Delhi High Court) In Jain Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr.: W.P.(C) 1358/2016, decided on 06.2016 this court had held that C-forms cannot be cancelled retrospectively. Further, this Court has disposed of several writ petitions […]
Mahajan Fabrics Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner CGST And Ors (Delhi High Court) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s. Mahajan Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST and Ors. [W.P. (C) 6727/2022 dated February 6, 2023] has set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority, disallowing the refund claimed by the assessee. Held that, the […]
Held that, an unsigned notice/order cannot be considered as an order and hence cannot be sustained. Further, directed the assessee to submit the reply within 2 weeks and directed the Revenue Department to pass the fresh orders after the assessee has been heard.
Delhi High Court held that the very act of filing an appeal against an order imposing customs duty is a protest against the duty as assessed. Accordingly, the same is to be construed as duty paid under protest.
Delhi High Court held that capital gain earned on sale of shares by non-resident is not taxable in terms of Article 13(4) of India and Singapore (DTAA) based on Tax Residency Certificate. Also held that revenue has to accept Tax Residency Certificate and cannot go behind it.
HC held that assessee cannot be penalised for an inadvertent error in submitting an erroneous information, which had already been rectified. Revenue Department should examine information as submitted by assessee and process its claim for refund of unutilized ITC
Delhi High Court held that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is pending consideration. Accordingly, the same cannot bar Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling.
