Income Tax Act | Delhi High Court Allows Set-Off Of Loss Of Eligible Unit Against Profits Of Other Non-Eligible Units

The Delhi High Court has held that the loss incurred by a unit eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act can be set off against the profits of other units of the assessee.Section 10B provides for deductions in respect of profits derived by eligible 100% export-oriented undertakings from the export of articles, things or computer software.The Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that although profits of each eligible unit are required to be...

Central & State GST Proceedings Not On 'Same Subject Matter' Merely Because Both Concern ITC For Same FY: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently held that Central and State GST proceedings cannot be treated as being on the 'same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely because both proceedings concern Input Tax Credit for the same financial year.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain said that determining whether proceedings initiated by Central and State GST authorities concern the same subject matter requires an examination of...

Delhi High Court Upholds Customs Broker Licence Revocation For Using Another Broker's Credentials

The Delhi High Court has upheld the revocation of a Customs Broker's licence after finding that it had consciously undertaken clearance-related activities using the credentials of another Customs Broker in relation to goods which were prohibited for import.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Shail Jain held that the consent or knowledge of the Customs Broker whose credentials were used could not authorise another broker to undertake Customs Broker functions using those...

'Classic Case Of Misuse': Delhi High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On DMRC For Misusing Award-Correction Process

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that it was difficult to believe that an organisation such as the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) did not know the fundamentals of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The court called DMRC's application seeking correction of the arbitral award a “classic case of misuse of Section 33”. It observed that the application may have been intended to obtain “breathing space” to challenge the substantive award.Section 33 allows a party to...

Delhi High Court Directs Meta To Disclose Basis For Action Against SEBI-Registered Analyst's Instagram Accounts

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed Meta to place on record the material on the basis of which it disabled one of the Instagram accounts of SEBI-registered research analyst Aakanksha Gupta and restricted three other social media accounts.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Meta to disclose the material underlying the action against Gupta's accounts. “The defendant no. 1 is directed to place on record the material based on which action has been taken against the plaintiff's accounts,” the...

Common Arbitrators Must Explain Contradictory Views In Related Disputes: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that, in peculiar circumstances involving common arbitrators and identical contractual provisions, an unexplained departure from an earlier view in a related dispute can justify interference with an arbitral award.“The common members of the Arbitral Tribunal are obliged to justify the different view being taken by them in the subsequently passed impugned Award.”, the bench ruled. A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh...

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...

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...

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...

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...