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.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges are subject to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194I, as they are for services and not rent.
Delhi High Court held that liability of deceased guarantor to repay debt shall fall upon legal representative. Hence, petitioner being legal representative of deceased guarantor is liable to make pre-deposits as envisaged in section 21 of the Recovery and Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [RDB Act].
Delhi High Court rules in favor of Central Plastics Pvt. Ltd., stating that taxpayers are not required to prove the “source of source” for share capital received before the 2012 amendment to Section 68.
Delhi High Court directs banks to unfreeze Unity Traders’ accounts after an appeal was filed against the original tax order. The ruling highlights the automatic stay granted by filing an appeal under the CGST Act.
Delhi High Court held that there was no requirement to resort to Clause 25(c) of GTC to formally notify the ICA for appointment of the Arbitrator and notice sent by invoking arbitration agreement u/s. 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is valid invocation.
Delhi High Court dismisses an appeal from the PCIT, upholding the acquittal of an assessee in a prosecution case for failure to file returns under Section 276CC.
Delhi High Court allows prosecution of Raj Kumar Kedia in a Rs. 700 crore accommodation entry scam, confirming the authority of the Principal Director (Inv.) to grant sanction.
