The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide Judgment dated 6th June, 2019 passed in Crl. A. No.660/2017 titled Sikodh Mahto vs. State and in Crl No.698/2017 titled Prabhu Mahto vs. State while quashing the order passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellants in case involving alleged seizure of contraband (Charas weighing 2 Kg. each from said appellants).
Penalty under section 271AAA could not be imposed on assessee on the ground that assessee failed to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived in case assessee had included the same in his return of income and accepted by AO without making any addition to the returned income.
Mr Satyakam informs the Court that Mr Rajesh Prasad has undertaken a complete review of the procedure and in view of what has transpired in the Court, he undertakes to disband the RAC. He proposes to issue appropriate notification to authorize a proper officer in respect of the refunds above the certain value strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi GST Act. He undertakes to place before the Court on the next date, by way of an affidavit, the steps taken by him in this regard.
Input Tax credit (GST) Can not be denied to recipient for default on part of the supplier- Delhi High Court issued notice to UNION OF INDIA. Delhi HC issues notice in writ petition challenging Section 16(2)(c), second proviso to Section 16(2)(d) and proviso to Section 16(4) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act);
Pr. CIT Vs DLF Commercial Projects Corporation (Delhi High Court) Neither the provisions of section 194C nor section 194J obliges the person making the payment to deduct anything from contractual payments such as those made for reimbursement of expenses, other than what is defined as “income”. The law thus obliges only amounts which fulfil the […]
Mr. Mittal points out that the calculation of the interest payable for delayed payment of GST as determined by the Respondent is erroneous. According to him, interest has been calculated even on the amount constituting the input tax credit which is in fact to be adjusted against the tax liability. He states that on the actual tax liability, interest has been paid by the Petitioner. He further states that against the total tax liability of Rs.3.31 crores the interest liability works out to 8.19 crores which makes it unreasonable and erroneous.
Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) In the present case all the material that was necessary for the AO to form an opinion regarding the transaction involving the Assessee and PACL was already available with the AO. There was no fresh tangible material on the basis of which the AO could […]
Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) This Court is of the opinion that the AO had to necessarily apply his/her mind to the application for stay of demand and pass appropriate orders having regard to the extant directions and circulars including the memorandum of 29.02.2016. This in turn meant […]
Government cannot exercise powers under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, prior to statute itself coming into force.
Bhargava Motors Vs UOI (Delhi High Court) In the present case also the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner‟s difficulty in filling up a correct credit amount in the TRAN-1 form is a genuine one which should not preclude him from having his claim examined by the authorities in accordance with law. A direction is […]
