The High Court held that prolonged custody and anticipated delay in trial cannot independently justify bail in cases involving commercial quantity narcotics. The statutory requirements under Section 37 continue to govern such applications.
The Delhi High Court discharged contempt proceedings after the petitioner tendered an unconditional apology and undertook not to repeat similar conduct. The Court imposed costs of Rs.3 lakh while censuring the filing of a petition based on false declarations.
The Delhi High Court held that whether coal beneficiation amounts to manufacturing involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence. It declined to quash prosecution for alleged non-compliance with cost audit requirements under the Companies Act.
Considering Clauses 7 and 7.1 of the 2022 Circular, the Court found that the amount in question appeared to be compensation rather than payment for a supply. It consequently stayed coercive measures until the matter is finally adjudicated.
The Delhi High Court admitted appeals challenging the Tribunal’s reliance on Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for directing a fresh valuation exercise in a slump sale transaction. The Court framed substantial questions on the legality of invoking provisions allegedly inapplicable during the relevant assessment year.
The Delhi High Court held that its earlier order directing the applicant to join investigation within ten days required no further clarification. The Court ruled that the applicant had failed to act within the stipulated timeline despite adequate directions.
The High Court questioned the Revenue’s refusal to grant credit for advance tax and TDS despite substantial amounts already lying with the Government. The matter was directed towards reconsideration through a fresh assessment.
The Delhi High Court held that ₹25 lakh paid under a prior agreement to sell was deductible under Section 48(i) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the eventual transfer of the property.
The Delhi High Court held that directing GST authorities to provide seven days’ prior notice before coercive action does not amount to blanket anticipatory bail. The ruling clarified that such protection merely preserves the individual’s right to seek legal remedies while allowing investigations to continue unhindered.
The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of Section 10(38) exemption after finding that the authorities had rightly treated the share transactions as bogus. The Court held that concurrent factual findings supported by evidence could not be interfered with in appeal.
