Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 917 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 933NOMINAL INDEXVedanta Limited Versus ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 917 Shree Bhavani Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 918 JagatMitra Foundation v Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 919 SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024...
Citations 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 917 to 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 933
NOMINAL INDEX
Vedanta Limited Versus ACIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 917
Shree Bhavani Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 918
JagatMitra Foundation v Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 919
SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 920
JCB INDIA LIMITED AND ANR v. THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 921
Honasa Consumer Limited Vs Rsm General Trading Llc 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 922
RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHNEER GROVER 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 923
M/S Chinar Steel Industries Vs Ircon International Limited 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 924
MOHAMMED ZUBAIR v. STATE OF GNCT & ORS. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 925
Amit Jain vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh & Anr (Crl.A. 1248/2019) 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 926
GUNJAN AS GUARDIAN OF PIHU v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 927
ESS Singapore Branch Versus DCIT 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 928
Raj Kumari Taneja Vs Rajinder Kumar & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 929
Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs Paramount Communications Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 930
MRS C v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 931
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vs A K Jain 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 932
ANKUSH & ANR. v. STATE 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 933
Case Title: Vedanta Limited Versus ACIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 917
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment order and held that the amount paid for obtaining mining rights in e-auctions cannot be construed as income.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has observed that the Department of Mines and Geology had merely provided to the AO the total amount paid by the petitioner for obtaining mining rights in the e-auctions that were conducted.
Case Title: Shree Bhavani Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 918
The Delhi High Court has held that the deduction under Section 80-IA(7) of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied for the mere failure of the assessee to digitally file an audit report.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that Audit Report was duly furnished to the AO and was available to be scrutinised and examined by that authority during the assessment proceedings, the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), as it stood prior to the amendments introduced in 2020, would be recognized to have been substantially fulfilled.
Case title: JagatMitra Foundation v Union of India through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 919
The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to treat as a representation a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking immediate action against the "illegal online sale of hookahs" on e-commerce platforms without specific health warnings.
During the hearing a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela orally said to the counsel appearing for the Centre, "He (petitioner) is highlighting a very important point. You must decide it. He is saying that the field is covered by a statutory provision. It is not being implemented. Which is the implementing agency. You must lay down a standard of procedure".
Word 'Approved' By PCCIT For Reopening Of Assessment Not Enough, Reasons Necessary, Delhi High Court
Case Title: SBC Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 920
The Delhi High Court has held that mere appending of the word “approved” by the PCCIT while granting approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act to the reopening under Section 148 is not enough.
Title: JCB INDIA LIMITED AND ANR v. THE COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 921
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) must honour the outcomes of mediation and respect the settlements reached between the parties.
A division bench comprising of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma said regulatory authorities such as the CCI are no exception to mediation process and settlements.
Case Title: Honasa Consumer Limited Vs Rsm General Trading Llc
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 922
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held that when proceedings in a foreign court, or a decree issued by a foreign court, threaten the arbitral process that may be initiated in India, the court has the authority under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to restrain the party from continuing with the foreign proceedings or enforcing the potentially prejudicial decree.
Delhi High Court Refers Employment Agreement Dispute Between BharatPe, Ashneer Grover To Arbitration
Title: RESILIENT INNOVATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHNEER GROVER
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 923
The Delhi High Court has referred to arbitration the dispute between former Managing Director of BharatPe, Ashneer Grover, and the fintech company concerning an employment agreement entered between them in August 2021.
Case Title: M/S Chinar Steel Industries Vs Ircon International Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 924
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that time limit under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable to arbitral proceedings “commenced” as per Section 21 prior to 2015 amendment.
Case Title: MOHAMMED ZUBAIR v. STATE OF GNCT & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 925
The Delhi High Court has directed a man named Jagdish Singh to put an apology on X Corp, formerly Twitter, for posting an “offensive tweet” against Alt News co founder Mohammed Zubair by calling him a “jihadi” in 2020.
Case Title: Amit Jain vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh & Anr (Crl.A. 1248/2019)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 926
While hearing a matter on cheque bounce under the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, the Delhi High Court recently said that it would be prudent for courts to acknowledge that friendly cash loans are provided between parties without an existing document trail, with accused often getting acquitted because the complainant is unable to prove the existence of a debt.
Title: GUNJAN AS GUARDIAN OF PIHU v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 927
The Delhi High Court has issued a slew of directions to ensure “respectful and accessible” admissions of students in all private unaided recognized schools under the EWS/DG category in the national capital.
Justice Swarana Kanta also directed all the stakeholders to ensure that there is a seamless merger of EWS and non-EWS students in the schools, as per the spirit of Right to Education Act.
AO Ought To Grant TDS Credit In Compliance Of ITAT's Directions: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ESS Singapore Branch Versus DCIT
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 928
The Delhi High Court has held that the Assessing Officer (AO) ought to grant TDS credit in compliance with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT's) directions.
Case Title: Raj Kumari Taneja Vs Rajinder Kumar & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 929
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar has held when a Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 11(5) or Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it has to only ensure the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties and to confirm that the petition under these sections has been filed within three years of the service of a Section 21 notice.
Case Title: Bharat Broadband Network Ltd. Vs Paramount Communications Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 930
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Prateek Jalan has held that a dispute regarding excise duty is only non-arbitrable when it involves a sovereign function, such as determining tax liability or the rate at which duty must be paid to revenue authorities.
Delhi High Court Allows Medical Termination Of Pregnancy For Woman In Live-In-Relationship
Title: MRS C v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 931
The Delhi High Court has recently permitted a 27-year-old woman, a single mother abandoned by her husband, to undergo medical termination of a 22-week pregnancy arising from a live-in relationship.
Case title: The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) vs A K Jain
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 932
The Delhi High Court observed that the absence of explicit prohibition on third parties from accessing information related to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 as a gap in the regulatory framework and this the Regulations should be interpreted in line with the RTI Act's goal of enhancing transparency.
Title: ANKUSH & ANR. v. STATE
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 933
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that Courts cannot be silent spectators or loudspeakers to echo whatever has been presented before them in the chargesheet.