Delhi High Court Orders Omaxe To Refund ₹3.35 Crore After Developer Stopped Assured Returns

The Delhi High Court has upheld an arbitral award directing Omaxe Ltd. to refund ₹3.35 crore to two co-allottees of a commercial unit in Omaxe Novelty Mall at Lawrence Road, Amritsar.A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also upheld the interest awarded by the tribunal and ₹25 lakh in costs. It further imposed ₹2 lakh in costs on Omaxe, payable equally to the two co-allottees within two weeks.The court ruled that Omaxe could not compel the...

Only SEBI Can Initiate Criminal Complaint For Front-Running Under SEBI Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has reiterated that a criminal complaint for an offence under the SEBI Act can be initiated only by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). It ruled that a court cannot take cognizance of such an offence on the basis of an FIR lodged by a private complainant. Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale held that Section 26 of the SEBI Act bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act unless the complaint is made by the SEBI Board. ...

Income Tax Act | 18-Month Period To Decide Settlement Application Cannot Restart On Transfer Between Interim Boards: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the period of 18 months for deciding a settlement application under Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, begins to run when the application first stands allotted to an Interim Board for Settlement and does not begin afresh when the Central Board of Direct Taxes later transfers the application from one Interim Board to another. Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Act requires an order under Section 245D(4) to be...

Commercial Courts Act Applies To Suits Filed Before 2015 Even If Re-numbered Later: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 applies to commercial suits instituted before the law came into force on October 23, 2015, even if they were converted or re-numbered as commercial suits later. The majority also held that the Act took away the right to appeal against orders that are not made appealable under its restricted appeal mechanism.A three-judge Bench comprising Justice V Kameswar Rao, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha and Justice Amit Mahajan was...

2010 IT Act Amendment Bringing Overseas Technical Services Into Tax Net Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a 2010 amendment to the Income Tax Act, which widened the scope of taxation of fees for technical services paid to non-residents, cannot be applied retrospectively to create a tax liability on past transactions. The court found that the amendment did more than clarify the existing law, as it widened the charging provision by removing the requirement that the technical services must have been rendered in India.“The impugned Amendment Act—Finance Act...

Four-Year Income Tax Refund Delay: Delhi High Court Directs AO To Appear If Campus Activewear Not Paid With Interest

The Delhi High Court has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to remain present before it and explain the “inordinate delay” in refunding Campus Activewear if the due payment along with applicable interest is not made by the next date. The refund has remained unpaid for last four years.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was informed by the Income Tax Department counsel that the requisite exercise for processing the Petitioner-company's refund was underway and the...

No Unaccounted Assets Or Investments Found: Delhi High Court Rejects Revenue's Plea For Higher Tax

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department seeking to levy tax at a higher rate under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had recorded any finding regarding the existence of undisclosed or unaccounted assets or investments.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the ITAT order, observing that in the absence of unexplained...

Gujarat High Court Declares Pre-October 2023 GST Levy On Related Persons' Corporate Guarantees Unconstitutional

The Gujarat High Court has declared unconstitutional the levy of GST on corporate guarantees furnished by one related company on behalf of another before October 26, 2023, holding that the retrospective levy violates fundamental rights.However, the court held that GST can be levied from that date where such corporate guarantees continue.While upholding the constitutionality of Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules read it down by removing the expression “whichever is higher” from the prescribed valuation...

Section 74(10) GST Act | Starting Point For GST Demand Limitation 'Debatable': Delhi High Court Declines Writ

The Delhi High Court has refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction to examine a dispute regarding the starting point for computation of limitation period under Section 74(10) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that it was “debatable” as to which limb of Section 74(10) would apply in the facts of the case and relegated the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal.Petitioner-company had challenged an...

GST Audit File Transfer Between Wings Is Administrative, Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the transfer of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing is essentially an administrative exercise. It further held that in the absence of any statutory prohibition under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against such transfer, the transfer by itself cannot be a ground for interference in writ jurisdiction.The division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was dealing with a...

GST Appellate Authorities Presumed To Know Government Notifications, Can't Ignore Them: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that a taxpayer who filed a GST appeal before the January 31, 2024 cut-off cannot be denied the benefit of a special procedure introduced to allow appeals affected by limitation. The procedure permitted eligible taxpayers to file appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act by January 31, 2024, subject to prescribed payment conditions.The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati made the...

Calcutta High Court Directs An Arbitral Tribunal To Record Chief Examination Of All Witnesses Before Cross-Examination

The Calcutta High Court has directed an arbitral tribunal to record the chief examination of all witnesses proposed by a claimant before beginning the cross-examination of any of them. The court held that this was necessary to prevent a later witness from filling gaps in the evidence of an earlier witness and prejudicing the other side.Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), setting aside a procedural order passed by the sole arbitrator in a dispute between the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Bengal...