Delhi High Court held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed without any incriminating material found during search. The Court dismissed Revenue’s appeal, reaffirming that additions under section 153A require evidence of undisclosed income or assets.
The Court ruled that services rendered remotely cannot create a PE because the treaty requires services furnished within India through employees. virtual presence cannot substitute physical presence without treaty amendment.
The Delhi High Court seeks an explanation for why certain GST demands were dropped despite the officer stating disagreement, highlighting procedural inconsistencies in tax assessment.
The Court held that the Petitioner misrepresented the date of receiving the provisional attachment notice. Bank accounts cannot be freely operated, subject to a minimum balance of ₹1 crore.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a GST Show Cause Notice issued after the death of the proprietor is void ab initio, quashing both the notice and the resulting order. Recovery may proceed against the deceased’s estate.
The Court observed that relevant turnover and business details were not disclosed in the petition. It instructed the Petitioner to submit an affidavit providing turnover, business nature, and ITC details before proceeding with adjudication.
Delhi High Court held that invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution unwarranted since efficacious alternative remedies under DRT and NCLT. Accordingly, writ petition is misconceived.
The Delhi High Court rejected an application seeking condonation of a nine-month delay in filing a revised ITR, holding that no sufficient cause or genuine hardship was established. The original ITR had been filed on time, and the delay was deemed excessive.
The Delhi High Court allowed a company to file a GST appeal despite delay, citing the serious illness of a key director. The Court emphasized procedural fairness while the validity of related notifications remains pending before the Supreme Court.
The Delhi High Court quashed charges against the petitioner in a corruption case, finding intercepted calls insufficient to establish grave suspicion of conspiracy.
