The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against Casio India for AY 2017-18, upholding the deletion of a Transfer Pricing adjustment for AMP expenses. The court ruled that the issue was covered by prior judgments, which rejected the Bright Line Test methodology.
A school challenged the MCD’s tax calculation under the SUNIYO Amnesty Scheme. The Delhi High Court, citing an SC restraint on similar interim orders, rejected the plea for a conditional deposit, reinforcing the policy-based nature of tax amnesty offers.
The tax appellate authority dismissed the appeal of Tangerine Design Private Limited (AY 2018-19) on the disallowance of late employee EPF/ESI contributions.
Delhi High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order for non-resident Ferra Engineering and remanded the case to the AO for fresh consideration on a capital gains transaction.
The Delhi High Court, in Purshottam Ray vs CGST, rejected a writ challenging a massive GST demand in a bogus invoice scam, directing the petitioner to file a delayed appeal.
The Delhi High Court relegated Ortho Clinical Diagnostics to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act to challenge a ₹39.82 crore GST demand and penalty based on the classification of reagent and equipment supplies as ‘mixed supply’ at the highest rate of 18%.
Court quashed the impugned GST order of Rs. 6.26 lakh for FY 2019-20, granting the petitioner 30 days to file a reply and directing the Adjudicating Authority to conduct a personal hearing before passing a reasoned order.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a technical limitation on the GST portal is no ground to deny a taxpayer’s rightful Input Tax Credit (ITC) re-credit. The Department must use manual intervention to credit the amount if the automated system fails, resolving a dispute over Rs. 23.32 lakh in tax credit.
A Delhi High Court ruling affirms that tax authorities cannot cancel a GST registration with retrospective effect from the date of initial registration unless the intention for retrospective cancellation is clearly stated in the Show Cause Notice (SCN).
Delhi High Court upholds CESTAT’s refusal to impose higher penalty under Section 114AA on freight forwarder Mayank Gupta in Red Sandalwood export case, citing limited role.
