In the High Court of Delhi in case of ON QUEST MERCHANDISING INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI. Held Section 9(2)(g) of Delhi Vat Act, 2004 requiring that the ITC will be allowed subject to the payment of tax by the selling dealer. Held that it was violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Purchasing Dealer has paid the entire tax amount to the selling dealer
Sonka Publication (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) In this case, a question to be asked is whether the books in question merely help the child in improving the child‘s handwriting by providing space in a book by copying from a written text or does it pose questions to […]
It is directed that the Respondents shall not, without prior intimation to this Court, proceed to appoint persons to the GST Appellate Tribunal till the next date.
Clix Capital Services (P.) Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that further to the previous directions, the Form GSTR-3B filed manually has since been processed and the notional demand in respect of Rs.16.80 crores has been reversed. It is submitted that in these circumstances, […]
Delhi HC quashes show cause notice against Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd. Alleged non-payment of service tax. Master Circular compliance issue discussed.
Electricity has all the necessary trappings of ‘articles’ or ‘things’ and the benefit of additional depreciation cannot be denied. As held by the Constitution Bench, electricity is capable of abstraction, transmission, transfer, delivery, possession, consumption and use like any other movable property.
Veena Devi Karnani Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Rule 127(2) clearly states that the addresses to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication may be delivered or transmitted shall be either available in the PAN database of the assessee or the address available in the income tax return to […]
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 have […]
The DlSCOMs provided certificates to the assessees, stating that supplies made by Schneider to DlSCOMs need not be included in the taxable turnover being valid deduction allowed under the Act read with Rule 11 of the DST Rules. Schneider (as well as other assessees in appeal, in this batch) claimed the exemption under the said Rule 11 (XII) for the relevant period for such sales made to DlSCOMs. The assessees complied with the provisions of Rule 11 (XII) and submitted the certificates issued by the said companies.
Pr. CIT Vs Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Central Government, by notification dated 31stDecember, 2012 has notified that no TDS shall be made on the following payments to the banks listed in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act: (i) bank guarantee commission; (ii) cash management service charges; […]
