The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid where the Assessing Officer sought to make the same additions already annulled by the CIT(A). The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision quashing the reassessment order.
The Delhi High Court held that consultancy and recruitment support services provided to foreign universities qualify as export of services under GST. The Court ruled that incidental involvement of Indian students does not convert such services into intermediary services.
The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that procedural defects should not obstruct substantive justice where no serious prejudice is caused.
The Delhi High Court held that shareholders of a foreign company cannot be taxed on the company’s rental income and capital gains merely because they hold all its shares. The Court reiterated that a company is a separate legal entity unless fraud or sham arrangements are proved.
The Delhi High Court held that frozen chicken supplied to the Indian Army was not exempt from GST because it was supplied in unit containers. The Court directed reimbursement of GST paid by the supplier along with interest for delayed payment.
Delhi High Court upheld the view that high-purity gold jewellery could not be absolutely confiscated merely because it fell within the category of primary gold. Redemption on payment of fine and duty was allowed.
The Delhi High Court held that the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and extends to documentary evidence in addition to oral testimony. The provision can be used whenever the evidence is essential for a just decision.
The High Court held that documents received through official international channels carry presumption of genuineness but must still satisfy proof requirements under Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the main offence and ED did not check important things like role of doctors, hospitals or end users.
Delhi High Court ordered Xiaomi entities to secure ₹272 crore because SEP implementers cannot continue exploiting standardized patented technology without furnishing interim security during FRAND disputes, even before final determination of infringement or royalty rates.
