Ester Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) High Court is of the view that the condition precedent of an asset in the form of Rs.50 lakhs is not be attracted to the present case, as the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act had been issued on 17th March, 2022 i.e. within three years […]
Bird Worldwide Flight Services (I.) Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Court is of the view that the Petitioner has a right to get adequate time under Section 148A of the Act to respond to the show cause notice. It is pertinent to mention that Section 148A(b) of the Act permits the Assessing Officer […]
Delhi High Court held that based on principle of initial interest confusion trademark infringement proved for using RAJNIPAAN, similar to take to well-known trademark RANJIGANDHA, even though no actual sale is finally created as a result of the confusion.
In present facts of the case, the Honble Delhi High Court held that the pre-show cause notice consultation is mandatory under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962
Delhi High Court held that supplier has to pass on benefit of rate reduction of GST or the benefit of ITC on every supply. The supplier cannot claim that he has passed on more benefit to one customer therefore he could pass less or no benefit to another customer than the benefit which is actually due to that customer.
Whether or not refund of IGST on exported goods will be allowed in the present petition after deduction of the drawback duty?
Extramarks Education India Private Limited Vs Ram School (Delhi High Court) The petitioner’s other objection, that since in its reply dated 31.08.2021 the respondent themselves were willing to accept and had given their consent for appointment of an arbitrator “near to the locality” where the respondents were located, is neither here nor there, since if […]
Kamlesh Keswani Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) HC held that petitioner is entitled to claim exemption under Section 54 of the Act on these admitted facts, as the conditions stipulated in Section 54 stand fulfilled. The New Property would be treated as the property purchased by the petitioner in his name and merely because he […]
Court is of the view that every Assessment Year is a separate unit which is governed by its own peculiar facts and difference of opinion between the parties, as to the appropriateness of one or the other methods to calculate arm’s length price, cannot per se be a ground for interference
Delhi High Court held that considering the limited scope of judicial review u/s. 34 of the Arbitration Act, court cannot modify the arbitral award by awarding interest to the appellant.
