Indus Towers Ltd. Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) The issue raised is that of gross suppression and misstatement by the petitioner, which led to a false projection of the outstanding liability/ refund due from/ to the petitioner. It is pointed out by Mr. Raghvendra Singh that the petitioner was required to file a consolidated return […]
Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Indian Medical Association (Delhi High Court) The issue under consideration is that whether service tax is applicable on clubs or associations incorporated prior to 1st July, 2012? The definition of “club or association” contained in Section 65(25a) makes it plain that any person or body of persons providing services […]
DCIT Vs TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Assessee is under a statutory obligation to set apart 50% of the excess amount generated due to the overreaching of the targets, for the purpose of the consideration of the DERC to fix the future tariffs either to give relief to the consumers or otherwise. […]
Matrix Cellular (International) Services Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Department have merely followed the statutory scheme of first making inquiries, and premised on the information gathered, to issue the Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act. Having heard learned counsels, we are of the view that there is […]
Delhi High Court after hearing detailed arguments dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner and has held that Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017 specifically empowers the authorities to institute any investigation, inquiry, verification, assessment proceedings, adjudication, etc. under Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules.
ICAI was under an obligation to provide reasons to the complainant for its prima facie conclusion of the Chartered Accountant being member not guilty of any misconduct on the complaint made by a Complainant.
Assessee could not be held guilty for violation of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of FERA, on the sole basis of the statement of Sh. Ashish Jain, which was retracted later on as none of the orders of the authorities, namely, the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal refer to any cogent material to substantiate the allegation of the commission of an offence under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA.
The Petitioner relied upon Section 9 and Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and submitted that the Respondent should examine the trademark applications in an efficient and proper manner in order to ensure that none of the marks which are brought before the Respondent are similar to that which are already registered and not clear for advertisement.
Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Budgetary Support Scheme – Plea of Promissory Estoppel not enforceable Facts – Petition filed against the Budgetary Support Scheme. Case of the Petitioner is that the erstwhile area based exemptions got rescinded with the introduction of the GST Regime w.e.f. 1.7.2017. Though Budgetary Support Scheme […]
In view of the foregoing, the documentary material shown to us by the Respondent leads to the conclusion that the land in question would be categorized as a capital asset. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption to agricultural land and hence, the compensation received by the assessee in pursuance of land acquisition proceedings, is subject to tax and the refund has been rightly rejected,
