Petitioner has highlighted several grievances with regard to the functioning of the GSTN system. Some of the issues highlighted relates to the technical and procedural aspects. The respondents must resolve these issues after understanding the difficulties that they are posing to the users.
The grievance of the petitioners is also that the statutory mechanism created for entertaining IGST refund claims is not being implemented, and that there are some inherent lacunas in the scheme formulated by the Respondents to process the refund claims.
The Court is satisfied in the present case that the Petitioner was unable to fill the TRAN-1 Form on account of bonafide difficulties and that, therefore, the Petitioner should be afforded one more opportunity to do so.
The issue under consideration is whether the exemption u/s 54 will be allowed if the reinvestment is made in residential property outside India?
Pr. CIT Vs NTPC Sail Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Electricity is capable of abstraction, transmission, transfer, delivery, possession, consumption and use like any other movable property. Following the same logic, to deny the benefit of additional depreciation to a generating entity on the basis that electricity is not an ‘article’ or ‘thing’ […]
M/S M3M India Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs Dr Dinesh Sharma & Anr (Delhi High Court) Judgment in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. constitutes the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, even in respect of the question raised in these […]
M/s Advantages India & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the opinion that there is a principle and/or policy for guidance of exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of selection of an investigative agency and there is no arbitrary, vague and uncontrolled power with […]
Pr. CIT Vs Vedanta Limited (Delhi High Court) It is apparent that the Assessing Officer without examining, commenting and rejecting the disallowance made by the respondent-assessee had applied Rule 8D as compulsory and universally applicable rule where the assessee has earned exempt income. However, Rule 8D cannot be invoked and applied unless the Assessing Officer […]
G. V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) The rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner’s opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court has difficulty to understand what more plea or proof any assessee could […]
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Grievance of the Petitioner is that Director General of Anti Profiteering (DGAP) has by the impugned notice dated 8th/9th April, 2019 sought information on all products of the Petitioner. In this context, he has referred to the recent amendment by which Sub-Rule 5 […]
