High Court
Limitation To Challenge Arbitral Award Starts On Postal Delivery To Party Not Email To Lawyer: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has recently ruled that the limitation period to challenge an arbitral award starts only when the party itself receives a signed copy of the award by registered post, and not when a signed copy is merely received on the email of the party's lawyer. "Thus, a conjoint reading of sub-section (5) of Section 31 and sub-section (3) of Section 34 would make it clear that the reckoning point for computation of the period of limitation is the date on which the party making the...
Delhi High Court Protects 60-Year-Old Trademark Rights, Orders Removal of 'ARUN' From 'AiC ARUN' Mark
The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the removal of the word “ARUN” from Alka Industrial Corporation's registered trademark “AiC ARUN,” holding that the mark infringed the six-decade-old “ARUN” brand of Satya Paul & Company used for sewing machines. Allowing a rectification petition filed by Satya Paul & Company, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the firm had continuously and uninterruptedly used the trade name “ARUN” since 1962 and had established substantial goodwill and...
Income Tax | Mere Disagreement On Facts With Assessing Officer No Ground to Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked merely because a taxpayer disputes the correctness of facts or the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961.A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed,“A challenge to notice or proceedings can be considered normally, in case where the notice and proceedings are without jurisdiction. Simply...
Income Tax Act | Loan Repayment Within Two-Day Of Receipt Alone Doesn't Prove Bogus Transaction: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently held that mere repayment of a loan within a short span of time, even within two days, does not by itself establish that the transaction was a sham or a bogus accommodation entry for the purposes of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed,“Simply because the loan has been paid within two days, it cannot be said with certitude that the loan was not a genuine loan and was only a paper entry....
Bombay High Court Directs Mumbai Stamps Collector To Expedite Decision On Developer's Representation
The Bombay High Court has directed the Additional Collector of Stamps, Mumbai, to expeditiously decide a representation filed in 2022 by a Mumbai-based developer seeking reconsideration of the Ready Reckoner rates applicable to its residential project. A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice S. M. Modak granted the Additional Collector twelve weeks from the date of communication of the order to hear the developer and decide the representation on merits. The Court also directed the...
S.148 Income Tax Act | Assessing Officer Not Required To Share Entire Record At Reassessment Notice Stage: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is not required to supply the entire material on record to an assessee at the stage of issuing a notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act ,1961 (re-assessment stage) observing that such a requirement would unnecessarily protract reassessment proceedings and enable assessees to manufacture defences.A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar observed,“If it is held that every material has to be supplied to the assessee...
Wrong Attachment In Reassessment Email Does Not Invalidate Income Tax Notice: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that an inadvertent attachment of another assessee's notice along with a reassessment email doesn't invalidate proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, so long as the substance of the communication clearly indicates that the statutory notice was intended for the concerned assessee.A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar thus dismissed the writ petition filed by an assessee challenging the continuation of reassessment proceedings...
S. 197 Income Tax Act| Delhi High Court Flags Date Mismatch Between Orders And Certificates Issued For Lower TDS, Asks CBDT To Address
The Delhi High Court has flagged an administrative issue in the processing of applications under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, noting that a mismatch between the dates on orders and certificates issued for lower or nil tax deduction can create a misleading impression of delay. The court noted that while the certificate may be issued later, the order deciding the application often bears the date of filing of the application. A division bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vinod Kumar...
GST Appeal Limitation Starts From Date Of Rejection Of Rectification Order: Gujarat High Court
Recently, the Gujarat High Court clarified that when a rectification application is filed, the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act runs from the date of disposal of the rectification application, not the original order. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi noted the delay in adjudication where a rectification application against an original order dated 12 August 2024 was filed on 5 November 2024, to be decided within...
Bombay High Court Upholds NMC Regulation Allowing Only Non-Profit Companies To Set Up Medical Colleges
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad recently upheld Regulation 6 of the Establishment of Medical Institutions, Assessment and Rating Regulations, 2023, which allows only non-profit companies to establish new medical colleges and hospitals. A division bench of Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde held that the rule is a valid exercise of regulatory power and is consistent with the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The regulations were framed by the National Medical...
2017 CBIC Circular On Proper Officers' Powers Under CGST Act Is Valid: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court upheld a 2017 Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) assigning functions to officers under the CGST Act, holding that it is legally valid when issued pursuant to a proposal by the Commissioner in the Board and approved by the Board under Section 168(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. In a judgement dated 2 February 2026, a Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed a challenge to the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017,...
