Baggage Rules Should Be Reviewed To Prevent Harassment Of Genuine Air Travellers Carrying Gold Jewellery To Attend Weddings: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has urged the Central government as well as the Customs department to review the Baggage Rules, 2016 which regulate the amount of gold or gold jewellery that can be carried by a person travelling to India by air. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “While, there is no doubt that any illegal smuggling of gold deserves to be curbed, at the same time, bona-fidely and genuine tourists/travellers, including people from Indian...

Samsung India Electronics Not A 'Permanent Establishment' Of Samsung Korea, Cannot Be Taxed In India: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd (SIEL), a wholly owned subsidiary of South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. is not its 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) in India, hence not exigible to tax here.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar agreed with ITAT's findings that the secondment of employees by Samsung Korea was merely with the objective of facilitating the activities of SIEL, not its own.It observed,“the secondment of...

Arbitrator's Order Determining Substantive Rights Of Parties Constitutes “Award”, Amenable To Challenge U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur has held that orders passed by the Arbitrator during the pendency of Arbitral proceedings, which finally determines any substantive rights of the parties, constitutes an interim Arbitral Award, and can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Brief Facts The appellant, a Swiss company engaged in manufacturing mountaineering boots, entered into a contract with...

S.149 IT Act | Additions Made During Reassessment Don't Validate Proceedings Initiated For Income Escapement Below ₹50 Lakh Threshold: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the benchmark of minimum Rs. 50 lakh income escapement prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be met at the very initiation of reassessment proceedings. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “Additions ultimately made in the course of reassessment would not validate the initiation of proceedings if founded on income of INR 46,17,000/- having escaped assessment and thus evidently below the...

Tariff, License Fee Received By Electricity Regulatory Commissions Not Exigible To Tax: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that amounts received by the Electricity Regulatory Commissions under the heads of filing fee, tariff fee, license fee, annual registration fee and miscellaneous fee are not exigible to tax. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma thus allowed the petitions filed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as well as the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission against the show cause notices issued to them by the GST...

Absence Of Formal Communication U/S 148A Of Income Tax Act Not Fatal When Opportunity To Question Reassessment Had Been Provided: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court observed that absence of a formal notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not fatal to reassessment proceedings initiated in the twilight zone when the inquiry provisions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma noted that the Department had provided an opportunity to the petitioner-assessee to question the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148, which was the “underlying...

Arbitral Award Cannot Be Challenged In Writ Petition, Party Must Use Remedy U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that it cannot entertain a writ petition challenging an arbitral award, and the petitioner should challenge the award by taking recourse to appropriate remedies under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Brief Facts: The present petition challenged an arbitral award passed pursuant to reference to arbitration under Section 18 of the MSMED Act 2006. The Arbitral Tribunal consisted of a sole arbitrator appointed by the DIAC....

Expert Tribunal's Award Did Not Suffer From Patent Illegality, Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that the scope of interference by the Court with the arbitral award under Section 34 is very limited, and the Court is not supposed to travel beyond the aforesaid scope to determine whether the award is good or bad.In the present case, the court held that the expert tribunals award did not suffer from patent illegality, and thus could not be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.Brief Facts: The...

Revocation Petition Can Be Filed Or Sustained After Expiry Of Term Of Patent: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a revocation petition can be filed or sustained after the expiry of the term of the patent. While dealing with a patent infringement suit, Justice Amit Bansal observed that just because the term of the patent has expired, it would not mean that the suit has become infructuous, as the cause of action still survives. “Applying the same rationale, it cannot be argued that a revocation petition cannot be filed or will not survive (if filed earlier) after the term...

If Assessee Produces Accounts, AO Must Be Satisfied That Accommodation Entries Exist Before Proceeding U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that an Assessing Officer is required to be satisfied that accommodation entries as alleged in show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961 exist, particularly where the assessee produces its accounts. In doing so, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heavily relied on its recent ruling in Sonansh Creations Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. where it was held...

Directors Cannot Be Held Liable For Dishonour Of Cheques After Commencement Of CIRP Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has reiterated that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishnonour of cheque cannot continue against individuals once a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is in effect. Brief Facts The petitions seek to quash the summoning order dated 01.04.2022 issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, in CC No. 9170/2020, filed under Section...

Date Of Receipt Of Corrected Award Would Be Taken As Disposal Date U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act, Even When Application U/S 33 Has Been Filed: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that taking the date of receipt of the corrected award as the starting point and not as the date of disposal would actually go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the Act. This will apply even in cases where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed. Brief Facts: The parties entered into a contract for supply, erection and commissioning of a Brewery Plant. The contract contains an...