Delhi High Court held that the period of limitation for cases covered u/s. 49(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 would be six months from the date on which the stamp paper was spoiled. Accordingly, refund of 90% stamp duty directed.
Assessee-company was engaged in the business of providing unsecured short-term loans to its customers/borrowers in India via its Digital Application based platform called the ‘CashBean‟.
Since the claim for refund could not be withheld merely because the Department, pursuant to the deposit, issued the SCN and was proposing to demand GST.
Explore the confusion surrounding Section 271(1)(c) penalty in PCIT Vs Modi Rubber Ltd. (Delhi High Court). Lack of clarity on concealment or inaccurate particulars raises questions.
Explore the Delhi High Court judgment on Randa Chehab’s deportation. Understand the consequences of violating business visa conditions and the legal stance on blacklisting foreigners
Delhi HC quashes GST cancellation in My Trading Overseas case, highlighting flaws in show cause notice. Upholds taxpayer’s right to a fair response.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s judgment in PCIT Vs Unitech Reliable Projects regarding Section 271(1)(c) penalties. The court emphasizes the necessity of specifying the relevant limb in penalty proceedings.
Delve into Delhi High Court’s judgment on PCIT Vs Minu Bakshi, exploring penalty imposition, notice specifics, and impact on income tax cases.
Delhi High Court rules that non-payment of VAT on repossessed vehicle sale, asserting DVAT Act exemption, is not deemed concealment, setting aside penalty orders.
Read the Delhi High Court judgment on Saroj Gagneja’s case against retrospective GST registration cancellation. Learn why the court deemed the cancellation unjust and the fair process upheld.
