HC quashed the letter issued by the Revenue department for blocking assessee’s bank account as it does not comply with the perquisites embedded under Section 83 of CGST Act 2017
Held that an arbitral award can be set aside/ challenged u/s 34 of A&C Act only if an arbitral tribunal’s view is not a possible view and no reasonable person could possibly accept the same.
Priti Nanda Vs CIT Appeals (Delhi High Court) 1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to list, hear and decide the first appeal filed by the Petitioner against the Assessment Order and freezing proceeding issued against her by the concerned Assessing Officer within a period of one […]
Omansh Properties Private Limited Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Delhi High Court) 1. Present application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking clarification of the order dated 19th January, 2022 passed by this Court to the effect that the impugned notice dated 20th April, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income […]
Pankaj Mahajan Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office (Delhi High Court) The role of the petitioner a practicing Chartered Accountant is that of the Stock Auditor wherein the Stock verifications of the documents and statements as submitted by the Company to the Banks was carried out by the accused. The main accusations against him are that […]
Sunil Jain Vs Income Tax Department (Delhi High Court) HC Court is also of the opinion that just because the Appellate Authority has the power to modify an assessment order with regard to a source of income that has not been considered during assessment proceedings does not mean that the jurisdiction of the authorities under […]
Held that an arbitral award awarded without any basis and also without adjudication of the claims is unsustainable in law.
Kishore Kumar Arora Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Based on the material placed on record, it would have to be concluded that the taxable turnover of the petitioner was Rs. 15,28,468/-, which, as noticed above, is below the threshold limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- fixed for tobacco products. We are, therefore, inclined to agree […]
Held that just because the parties have chosen a foreign-seated institutional arbitration under the UNCITRAL Law, it cannot be presumed that an agreement is excluded from the applicability of Section 9
ITO admits that principle of judicial discipline mandates that the lower authorities are bound to follow the orders passed by the higher authorities. He expresses his unconditional apology and regret for the aforesaid observations/findings and prays that the said observations in the impugned order be expunged/deleted.
