Delhi High Court held that license fees paid for use of goodwill is allowable as business expenditure. Accordingly, the same is deductible under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi HC: DRP direction receipt date is the ITBA upload date (not physical receipt). Final tax assessment order passed one day late under S. 144C(13) is time-barred and invalid.
:While the Customs Broker was negligent in exercising due supervision over its employee, permanent revocation of licence was an excessive penalty. Applying the principle of proportionality, the revocation was modified to a limited period of four years with specific monetary deposits and compliance conditions.
The strict 4-month statutory limitation period for filing a GST appeal under Section 107 could not be condoned, as the provision created a special regime that excluded the general principles of condonation of delay under the Limitation Act.
While upholding validity of an unsigned GST order accompanied by DRC-07, Delhi High Court quashed rectification order passed without giving taxpayer an opportunity to be heard.
Delhi High Court took note of government’s decision to discontinue GST concessions for orthopedically disabled persons and directed officials to explain why a proportionate GST reduction cannot be implemented for disabled buyers.
An Indian citizen was caught by the Customs Department attempting to depart with 15,000 U.S. Dollars concealed without valid documentation, leading to the absolute confiscation of the currency and imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).
Lawyer’s office constituted a professional, not commercial, activity, and use of an air-conditioned basement for such purpose did not violate Section 252 of the NDMC Act when consistent with MDP 2001 and Building Byelaws, 1983.
Delhi HC rules that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act does not bar an unregistered firm from filing a writ petition to enforce statutory rights, upholding the maintainability of a GST challenge.
Ordering compliance with Section 67(3) and (5) of CGST Act, Court held that seized devices must either be returned if not relied upon, or data copies must be furnished to taxpayer in presence of officials.
