Delhi High Court held that consideration for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreement is not Royalty for the use of copyright of the computer software and hence doesn’t give rise to any taxable income in India.
The Delhi High Court declined to hear Soham Industries’ writ petition against ITC denial and penalties, citing the availability of appellate remedies despite claims of non-service of SCN.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a Rs. 1.04 crore GST demand against Priyanka Goyal, ruling that the show cause notice was not properly communicated via the Additional Notice tab, impeding the petitioner’s right to reply
Delhi High Court has permitted release of gold items seized from a traveler after he agreed to pay a redemption fine and customs duty. The court’s order disposes of petition.
The Delhi High Court ordered a bank to unfreeze a company’s account, ruling that the provisional attachment, issued by an officer of a lower rank, had expired.
The Delhi High Court ordered the unfreezing of a company’s bank account, ruling that the provisional attachment had expired as it was more than one year old.
Delhi High Court set aside reassessment for AY 2018-19 holding that escaped income was under ₹50 lakh and did not meet conditions of Section 149(1A). AO’s attempt to club multiple years without proving a singular asset or event was rejected.
Delhi High Court reduced the pre-deposit amount bearing in mind the financial constraints and held that the question as to whether the imported components constituted E-Rikshaw themselves shall also be adjudicated by the CESTAT. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Considering that the matter is at the stage of framing of charge and the trial has to begin, the Court is not passing any observation in this regard. However, for the purposes of this assessment, these set of circumstances do not persuade the Court that ECIR needs to be quashed.
Delhi High Court granted regular bail in view of absence of evidence/ material alleging connection of petitioner in GST bogus firm registration case and also petitioner being in judicial custody for almost 8 months.
