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.
Delhi HC directs Customs and CBIC to strictly implement the DGFT’s Minimum Import Price (MIP) of Rs. 20,108/- per MT on Soda Ash imports to protect domestic industries.
Delhi HC condoned a 16-day delay in filing a GST appeal, holding that pendency of a rectification plea constituted a sufficient cause under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The appeal was restored subject to costs.
Delhi High Court held that separate transfer pricing adjustment for AMP was uncalled for given that the distribution business of assessee was already benchmarked separately and the transaction was benchmarked correctly.
Delhi High Court sets aside GST demand order where SCN uploaded under “Additional Notices” tab, directs fresh reply & hearing; validity of extension notifications still pending.
Delhi High Court rules in PCIT v. Amadeus India that no Transfer Pricing adjustment is warranted for AMP expenses, citing no ‘international transaction.’ The Court reiterates the Finance Act 2022 amendment to Section 14A is prospective from AY 2022-23, not retrospective, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Delhi High Court set aside a reassessment notice and the corresponding order under Section 148A(3) because its basis was the incorrect assessment year for a major transaction. The Court, in the interest of fairness, remanded the matter, directing the AO to provide a fresh hearing after the taxpayer files documents proving the transaction occurred in AY 2018-19, not the reopened AY 2019-20.
This decision reinforces the legal requirement that supervisory approval under Section 153D is a substantive safeguard, not an empty ritual. The High Court affirmed that granting blanket sanction to 246 assessments through a generic endorsement is equivalent to a mechanical approval that fails to satisfy legislative intent.
