Delhi HC Asks CESTAT To Decide If Tax On Services Purchased By Prepaid Mobile Subscribers From Existing Balance Would Amount To Double-Tax

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.Considering that the matter would involve factual evaluation of the manner in which services are provided and charged by the company, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta...

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act By Attaching TMT Steel Bars Worth ₹69.5 Crores Made Using Coal Whose Quality Was Disputed

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has granted interim relief to a petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the extent of 50% of the balance outstanding claimed i.e., Rs. 69.50 Crores by attaching TMT Steel bars (finished product) of the equivalent amount in a dispute over the quality of coal delivered, which was used to manufacture the steel bars. Brief Facts of the case: The dispute arose with respect to an agreement for the...

[Arbitration Act] Limitation Does Not Stop If Initial Filing Is Non Est, Date Of Filing Must Be Reckoned From Date Of Refiling: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri has reiterated that the filing of the arbitral award under challenge along with application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement and non-filing of the same would make the application non est in the eyes of law. The Court further observed that such a non est filing would not stop the limitation and the date of filing would be reckoned from the date...

Time Spent Before 'Wrong' Court Excluded U/S 14 Of Limitation Act While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma has held that during the calculation of the limitation period of three months for the application under Section 34(1) of the Act, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting such application before the wrong court is excluded. Court noted that the proceedings in the wrong court should be bona fide, with due diligence. Brief Facts of the case: The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration &...

Delhi High Court Allows Indigo Airlines' Plea, Holds Levy Of Additional IGST On Repaired & Re-Imported Aircraft Parts To Be Unconstitutional

In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that “additional duty even after the transaction has been subjected to the imposition of a tax treating it to be a supply of service would be clearly...

Respondent Cannot File Cross-Objections To Appeal Before High Court U/S 260A Income Tax Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The Legislature appears to have consciously desisted from adopting principles akin to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code or specifically introducing provisions enabling the respondent in an appeal...

Delhi High Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Disposal Of Matters Before National Faceless Appeal Centre

The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).The body was created for faceless assessment under Section 143 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the insertion of Section 144B via the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, “This court is cognizant of the...

When Application U/S 33 Of A&C Act Is 'Disguised Review', Limitation For Challenging Award U/S 34 Cannot Be Extended: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has held that if the application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is purely an application for review, then the person seeking to challenge the award cannot avail of the time taken between the filing of the application under Section 33 and the date of disposal for calculating the period to challenge the award. The court stated that Section 33 cannot be allowed to be used as a tool to prolong limitation...

S.153C Income Tax Act | Two-Tier Satisfaction Of Assessing Officers Of Both Searched & Non-Searched Entity Needed Even Prior To 2015 Amendment: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.Section 153C allows the Revenue department to proceed against a party other than the person who is being searched, if incriminating articles belonging to the other person are found during the search.The provision was...

Arbitral Award Not Signed By All Members Of Tribunal Can Be Set Aside If Reasons For Omission Of Missing Signature Are Not Stated: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has observed that the signature of all members of the arbitral tribunal should be available on the award as the signing of an award is not a ministerial act but a substantive requirement. It was further observed that if the signature of any member of the tribunal is omitted, then the reasons should be stated as this requirement is referable to the need to ensure that all members of the tribunal have has an opportunity to participate in...

[S.292B Income Tax Act] Inadvertent Mistakes In Reassessment Can Be Saved But Assessment Order Overlooking Apparent Error Cannot: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be used to save an assessment order passed by overlooking errors apparent on face of the record.The provision provides that no notice or assessment or any proceedings can be deemed to be invalid merely for the reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, assessment or other proceedings.A division bench of Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said while the...

Enterprise Manufacturing Specified Items In Designated States Can Seek Tax Deduction U/S 80IC Income Tax Act Without Agreement With Govt: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which contemplates tax incentives for enterprises operating in specific industries and locations in India, does not require such enterprises to enter into an agreement with the Government.In doing so, a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar distinguished the provision from Section 80IA, whereunder agreement with the Centre, State or local authority is a pre-condition for claiming...