Delhi High Court held that proceedings for civil contempt against Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [PCIT] dropped since there is no wilful disobedience or order has not been passed with evil intent or with bad motive.
The Delhi High Court recalled its previous orders in four GST cancellation petitions after discovering the SCNs and petitioners’ ID documents (Aadhaar) were forged, triggering a high-level probe into the fraudulent use of the judicial process.
Delhi High Court declines writ relief in ITC fraud case, directing petitioners to approach appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Delhi High Court holds that the challenge to GST notifications extending time limits for Section 73 adjudication orders must await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the validity of Section 168A extensions, noting conflicting High Court judgments.
Delhi High Court sets aside GST order for denial of hearing; directs fresh adjudication. Validity of GST time extension notifications left to Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court held that seized amounts prima facie being proceeds of crime cannot be termed as income of accused as trial in PMLA case is yet to be conclude. Accordingly, it is erroneous to treat such amount as taxable income recoverable by Income Tax Department.
Delhi High Court held that penalty duly imposed on employee of Custom House Agent [CHA] for failure to ensure clean credentials of the importer. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and order passed by CESTAT upheld.
Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s Aneeta Hada ruling, quashed criminal prosecution of Directors under Section 276. Vicarious liability requires the primary offender (Company) to be an accused.
Delhi High Court held that redemption fine needs to be waived once the tax payer has availed the benefits of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDR Scheme] and has paid the amount in terms thereof.
Delhi High Court held that Section 20 stipulates a defined mechanism for the retention of seized property or records, it is imperative that such procedure is strictly followed. Thus, retention of seized property without following procedure stipulated under section 20 of PMLA is not justifiable.
