The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s deletion of expense disallowances, noting that the books of account had not been rejected. The ruling highlights that ad hoc disallowances require stronger justification.
The Delhi High Court held that acceptance of payment under an approved insolvency resolution plan amounted to settlement of the dispute. As the plaintiff accepted the CIRP amount as full and final settlement, withdrawal of the suit and refund of the entire court fee were permitted.
The Delhi High Court held that the period consumed in granting time to the assessee under Section 148A(b) must be excluded while computing limitation. As reassessment proceedings were initiated within time, the Section 148 notice was held valid.
The Delhi High Court held that in a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, sensitive classified documents need not be supplied as copies. Inspection of the documents was considered sufficient to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial.
The Court noted that the complaint against the Resolution Professional and the related proceedings stemmed from CIRP proceedings before the NCLT, Bengaluru. It therefore declined to adjudicate the matter on merits.
The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in rectifying its earlier order because the amendment to Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) operated retrospectively from 01.04.1968. The appeals were dismissed and the issue was decided against the assessee.
The Delhi High Court upheld deletion of additions after authorities under the Black Money Act concluded that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the foreign assets. The Court held that a protective assessment could not survive on those facts.
The Court held that although notices were sent to the address available in PAN and passport records, the reassessment order could not stand because the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessment, demand notices, penalties, and recovery proceedings were set aside.
The Delhi High Court observed that rejection of a GST refund claim after repeated judicial directions to grant the refund may amount to contempt. The Court granted time to the department to file its response before further consideration.
The Delhi High Court held that exoneration under Section 73 does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 because both provisions operate in distinct legal spheres. Taxpayers must challenge factual findings through statutory appeals rather than writ petitions.
