Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 8 To August 14, 2022
Live LawNOMINAL INDEXCitations 2022 LiveLaw 765 TO 2022 LiveLaw 781SARIKA@RADHA@LOVANYA T v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2022 LiveLaw 765DINESH KUMAR v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. Can't Withhold Refunds In Mechanical And Routine Manner: Delhi High Court Case Title: Trueblue India LLP Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 768 The Delhi High Court has held that an order under Section 241A of the Income Tax Act cannot be passed in a mechanical and routine manner. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 versus TV Today Network Ltd. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 769 The Delhi High Court has allowed the assessee- TV Today Network Ltd.'s claims for deduction of expenses in nature of 'consumption incentive' offered to the advertisers for booking more The Bench, consisting of Justices Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, reiterated that the 'due date', in case of delay by the assessee in depositing the employees' contribution to Provident Fund under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned as the date for filing the return under Section 139 and not the due date as prescribed under the relevant Labour statute. Procedural Formalities In CPC Intended To Facilitate Litigation, Not To Be Abused As Instrument Of Oppression To Frustrate Proceedings: Delhi HC Case Title: EXTREME COATING PRIVATE LTD v. JOTUN INDIA PRIVATE LTD. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 774 The Delhi High Court has observed that the procedural formalities in the Code of Civil Procedure are "intended to facilitate litigation" by prescribing the course to be adopted and not to be "abused as an instrument of oppression" to frustrate validly instituted proceedings. Supersession Of The Arbitration Clause Must Not Be Inferred Lightly: Delhi High Court Case Title: Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. versus Ircon International Limited Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 778 The Delhi High Court has ruled that in view of the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer', as enunciated by the Supreme Court, if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, which is sought to be negated by a party by citing other provisions of a contract, which requires interpretation of the contract, the Court must lean towards referring the matter to arbitration.