PCIT Vs Junjab National Bank (Delhi High Court) Merely because additions made by the Assessing Officer have been partially upheld by the CIT (A), would not confer the ground to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of imposition of penalty, unless it is found that there is concealment of material facts, or furnishing […]
Rule 27 embodies a fundamental principal that a Respondent who may not have been aggrieved by the final order of the Lower Authority or the Court, and therefore, has not filed an appeal against the same, is entitled to defend such an order before the Appellate forum on all grounds, including the ground which has been held against him by the Lower Authority, though the final order is in its favour.
Temporary non-use of premises due to the lockdown which was announced due to the COVID-19 outbreak cannot be construed as rendering the lease void under Section 108(B)(e) of the TPA. The tenant cannot also avoid payment of rent in view of Section 108(B)(l).
Ramanand & Others Vs Dr. Girish Soni and Another (Delhi High Court) Amidst the outbreak of COVID-19, An application for suspension of rent has been moved to Delhi High Court. It is pleaded that tenants are entitled to wavier of the monthly payouts or at least some partial relief in terms of suspension, postponement or […]
Suit ought not to have been rejected outright under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the pleas taken by the appellants/plaintiffs were barred under Section 4(3) of the unamended Benami Act. It would therefore be imperative to weigh the evidence in the instant case for the court to conclusively decide as to whether the appellants/plaintiffs can succeed in their claim that the respondent No.1 was holding the suit premises in a fiduciary capacity, for the benefit of all the family members.
The issue under consideration is whether the imposition of cost of one lakh rupees on an exporter for the blatant violation of the Duty-Free Credit Entitlement Scheme (DFCE) is justified in law?
As in the present case before us, issues subject to revision were pertaining to original assessment and not the reopened assessment; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In this case as original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act was passed on 16.01.2014, the revision thereof could have been taken up to 31.3.2016
Bail was allowable to accused director of fraud on the reason that he was not the signatory to the alleged False Statement in the balance sheet of the Company and there was no loss caused either to any financial institution or Central/State Government and moreover, the trial proceedings is not possible within the reasonable time because of lockdown due to COVID-19 outbreak in India.
Lalita Aggarwal Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) In view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the Department shall act sympathetically in accordance with law and hence they will modify the attachment of the bank account of the pensioner, if any and to permit withdrawal of the amounts deposited as pension in the State Bank of India and […]
Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (Delhi High Court) In the given case, the plaintiff is seeking the main relief to pass a decree of declaration, declaring that the Letter of Engagement as well as arbitration clause being Article 16 of the Letter of Engagement is null and void, inoperative and […]
