-
HC - Assessment order passed without DRP directions set aside.
Fiberhome India Private Limited Vs NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, ADDITIONAL – JOINT – DEPUTY – ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – INCOME-TAX OFFICER
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27996 (HC-DELHI)
-
Mere fact that decision is not acceptable to the Revenue cannot be a ground for not following the decision of higher authority.
Cotecna Inspection SA Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27988 (HC-DELHI)
-
Revenue cannot frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions, sections 147 to 151 in the present instance by emptying it of their content, or impeding or postponing their operation.
Mon Mohan Kohli Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27943 (HC-DELHI)
-
Revenue is directed to dispose of the application u/s 197 preferred by Alcatel Lucent International by passing a reasoned order within two weeks.
Alcatel Lucent International Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27930 (HC-DELHI) · Section 197
-
Where the core of a transaction is to authorise the end-user to have access to and make use of the licenced software over which the licencee has no exclusive rights, no copyright is parted with and therefore, the payment received cannot be termed as royalty.
EY Global Services Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27928 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Revenue submits Report on appropriate Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) over non-release of refund by CPC so that orders passed by the AOs are given effect to within appropriate time frame.
Intertek India Private Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27849 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Order passed without issuing SCN in pre- amendment faceless regime will be in contravention of principles of natural justice resulting in assessment being declared void.
RMSI Private Limited Vs NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27588 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Certificate u/s 197 for lower withholding tax at 5% on dividend receivable by Dutch Co. granted.
Deccan Holdings B V Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27575 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Writ allowed - CIT required to pass a reasoned order u/s 264 while determining applicability of beneficial rate of dividend under India-Mauritius DTAA.
Xchanging Technology Services India Private Limited Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 DELHI, & ANR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27393 (HC-DELHI) · Section 264
-
Section 260A(1) allows appeal against ITAT’s order only on a question of law which must be debatable and not previously settled.
Bhadani Financiers Pvt. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27365 (HC-DELHI) · Section 260A
-
HC - Para 4(B) of CBDT Office Memorandum dt. Feb 29, 2016 is mandatory in nature and Revenue has to give reasons for pre-deposit of more than 20% demand.
Eko India Financial Services Private Limited Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27335 (HC-DELHI)
-
Determination of tax liability in a challenge to an order under Section 241A would set at naught the entire statutory scheme of assessment and appeals.
GE Capital Mauritius Overseas Investments Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26456 (HC-DELHI) · Section 241A
-
With the introduction of Board for Advance Rulings in the Finance Bill, 2021, no benefit would accrue in appointing a senior member as officiating Vice Chairman.
Internet Fund II Pte. Ltd Vs THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) & ANR.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26449 (HC-DELHI)
-
If the order so passed by the Revenue is adverse to the interests of the assessee, the same shall not be given effect to for four weeks, commencing from the date the said order is served.
BT (India) Private Limited Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26416 (HC-DELHI) · Section 195
-
Mere issuance of scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) cannot be the sole basis for withholding refund from the assessee.
Ingenico International India Pvt. Ltd Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26415 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 241A, 143(2)
-
An appeal would be pending in the context of Sec. 2(1)(a) of the 2020 Act when it is first filed till its disposal, rules that Sec. 2(1)(a) does not stipulate that the appeal should be admitted before the specified date, it only adverts to its pendency.
Shyam Sunder Sethi Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 & ORS.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26369 (HC-DELHI)
-
No substantial question of law arose for its consideration.
Krishan Kumar Modi Vs PCIT (CENTRAL) -3
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26337 (HC-DELHI)
-
Revenue did not lead any evidence to show connection of accused Director No. 2 with undisclosed income; After submission of ITR under Sec. 139(1), Revenue conducted search and seizure operations under Sec. 132 following which assessee company disclosed additional income of Rs. 1.21 Crore.
M/s. Shourya Tower (P) Ltd. Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26317 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 153A, 153C search assessments: (i) A statement recorded u/s 132(4) has evidentiary value but cannot justify the additions in the absence of corroborative material. (ii) The statement also cannot, on a standalone basis, constitute 'incriminating material' so as to empower the AO to frame a block assessment u/s 153A (iii) If the statement was recorded in the course of search conducted in the case of a third party, and assuming the statement is construed as 'incriminating material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than person searched', the only legal recourse available to the department is to proceed in terms of S. 153C of the Act by handing over the same to the AO who has jurisdiction over such person. An assessment framed u/s 153A on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act) is not valid. The Assessee also had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness (All imp judgements referred)
PCIT (Central) – 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26306 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 153A, 153C
-
The shares in the present scenario were not subscribed to by any sister concern or closely related person, but by outside investors and if they have seen certain potential and accepted this valuation, then Appellant-Revenue cannot question their wisdom.
Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26298 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.