Delhi High Court held that disqualification of Haj Group Organization merely on the basis of uncertainty in respect of the amount of GST to be paid is unjust.
Delhi High Court held that there is no requirement of identity proof for exchange of Rs. 2000 denomination banknotes as it is not the case of demonetization but it is a case of mere withdrawal of Rs. 2000 denomination banknotes from circulation.
Delhi High Court held that case can duly be transferred from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to Central Circle by way of passing order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of application under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (the SVLDR Scheme) merely because of some non-material errors in quantum of duty is unsustainable.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of Microsoft patent application for invention relating to ‘Methods and Systems for authentication of a user for sub-locations of a network location’ solely on the basis of non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 is unjustified and needs re-examination.
Delhi High Court held that CCI does not have jurisdiction over Continuing Professional Education (CPE) activities of ICAI
HC ruled that provision of services by taxpayer to its holding company, as per terms of an agreement, does not categorize service provider as an intermediary.
Delhi HC verdict on Northern India Zonal Assembly of The Mar Thoma Church’s case against Income Tax Department. The court calls for a swift resolution to a four-and-a-half-year-old appeal.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) on ground that investigation has not been concluded is unsustainable as SVLDRS doesn’t exclude taxpayers in respect of whom investigation is not concluded.
Delhi High Court held that the legislative history of Section 245A of the Income Tax Act indicates that the proceedings for assessment, re-assessment and re-computation u/s. 148, prior to issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, were excluded from the scope of the definition of the term ‘case’. Literal interpretation of language of section 245A is justifiable.
