Delhi High Court didn’t invoked power to dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit as the case doesn’t fall in the category of rare and exceptional case. Further, it was found that petitioner was actively involved in evasion of duty and intent the parties to misdeclare imports.
Delhi High Court held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act without scrutinizing the accounts of the respondent/assessee unjustified in law and hence liable to be set aside.
In case of Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Central Tax GST, Delhi HC orders a stay on search proceedings until Section 67 conditions are met.
Delhi High Court quashes jurisdiction in Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc vs. CIT case, leading to the setting aside of impugned orders and notices under the Income Tax Act.
Explore Kapil Wadhwa vs. Samsung Electronics case, a Delhi High Court landmark decision on using third-party trademarks in meta-tags. Learn about its legal implications
Delhi High Court held that a penalty of revocation of license for failing to collect the KYC forms unjustly restricts the Appellant’s ability to undertake the business CHA for the entire life. Accordingly, revocation of customs broker license set aside.
Delhi High Court held that as per Section 38(3)(a)(ii) of the DVAT Act a pre-deposit does not partake the character of tax or duty, and hence Tax Department can neither retain the same nor could it utilize the same for adjustment purposes towards tax liability for different assessment years.
Delhi High Court held that preference to Chartered Accountants over Cost Accountants for the post of Director (Finance) cannot be treated as arbitrary or violative of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court held that drawback benefit is duly available on export of gold dore bars on payment of only additional duty under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act at the time of import.
Delhi High Court held that telecommunication-company, providing telecommunication and ancillary support services to company based in Singapore on its own cannot be qualified as ‘intermediary service’ as they have entered into separate contracts with service providers in India.