Delhi High Court held that withholding of refund merely because notice has been issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is unjustifiable and bad in law.
Delhi High Court directed the concerned officer to revisit the application preferred under section 197 of the Income Tax Act as the concerned officer simply by-passed the Supreme Court judgement in Engineering Analysis by observing that revenue has preferred a review petition. Such approach of officer is untenable.
Delhi High Court held that the fee earned by the respondent/ assesse (M/s. Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee) from regulating agricultural produce (which includes fish, poultry, and eggs) falls within the scope of Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Oyo Hotels And Homes Private Limited Vs DCIT/ACIT (Delhi High Court) The grievance of the petitioner, which is also obvious, is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has not dealt with its application, preferred before him, in respect of the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 220(6) of the […]
Ernst And Young Limited Vs Additional Commissioner CGST (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the petitioner has provided professional services in terms of the service agreements to overseas entities (EY Entities). It had issued the invoices for the said services directly to EY Entities and had received the invoiced consideration from EY Entities, in […]
Delhi High Court restrained Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India from using ICAI acronym, a trademark which stands registered in favour of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
Delhi High Court held that rejection of refund application on allegation of fake credit availed by the supplier is unsustainable in absence of any establishment of non-supply of goods from the said supplier.
Delhi High Court held that whether condition 104 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 is complied or not is required to be considered by the Customs Authorities and Customs Authorities are not bounded by the decision of DGCA.
Delhi High Court held that reasons provided for withdrawal of export shipments vis-à-vis letter requesting permission for withdrawal of shipments doesn’t co-relate. Further, letter for withdrawal of impugned shipments not produced before adjudicating authority. letter for withdrawal of impugned shipments rejected.
Delhi High Court held that for exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, twin conditions i.e. order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. PCIT order not satisfying the same needs to be quashed.
