Delhi High Court held that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner culpable under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as property was obtained as the result of the criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
ITAT has allowed the appeals of the Assessees following the judgement of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 178 taxman 84 (Del). He, however, states that the said decision of this Court has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal has been preferred against the same, which is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court being CA No. 3094/2010.
In the instant case, officer deemed it necessary to carry out physical verification of the petitioner’s place of business before proceeding to pass the impugned order, which resulted in the cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration. Concededly, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring, as mandated by Rule 25, his presence at the time of verification.
Vidisha Singhal Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) AO admits that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is riddled with mistakes. He further admits that in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the details of the transactions allegedly carried out by the petitioner were not correct. He states that […]
Mittal International Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 26th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Learned counsel for the […]
Delhi High Court sets aside ex-parte assessment order and directed petitioners to place on record available documents to stake claim that Inter-state sales/ branch transfers have taken place.
Delhi High Court held that as appellant have exhausted their appellate remedy and there is no alternate efficacious remedy available to the appellant, the court finds the case fit for exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226.
Bimal Kothari Vs Assistant Commissioner (DSGST) & Ors (Delhi High court) The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“the High Court”) in the case of M/s. Bimal Kothatri v. Assistant Commissioner (DSGST) & Ors. [(W.P.(C) 9207/2019 & CM No. 37947/2019] dated November 01, 2022, held that cancellation of GST registration is not sustainable when no notice was […]
Delhi High Court held that duty drawback has been paid to the exporter, but, until now, sale proceeds have not been received against exports, the deeming provision incorporated in the second (2nd) proviso to Section 75 will kick in. Hence, duty drawback needs to be remitted.
Delhi High Court held that addition on the basis of single seized document is unsustainable as no fresh material was taken into account by the AO for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act.
