-
The exercise of withholding of refund under section 241A of the Act, pursuant to notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, without recording justifiable reasons, is not in consonance with the legislative intent and mandate of the aforesaid provision.
COONER INSTITUTE OF HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23016 (HC-DELHI) · Section 241A
-
Respondents while issuing the impugned certificate has placed detailed reasons on record. The petitioner had in its own application for grant of certificate of deduction of tax at source at NIL rate under Section 197 had mentioned the applicable rates as 2% and/or 10% during Financial Year 2020-21. She also states that the projected gross receipts during this Financial Year 2020-21 is projected to be 78% more than the preceding year according to the petitioner itself.
MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) -1 NEW DELHI & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22938 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83124&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Purpose of issue of notice is to make the noticee aware of the nature of the proceedings. Once the nature of the proceedings is made known and understood by the assessee, he should not be allowed to take advantage of certain procedural defects. That was the purpose behind the enactment of Section 292BB.
SAVITA KAPILA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI MOHINDER PAUL KAPILA VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 43 (1) DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22890 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83102&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Thus, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case.
SAVITA KAPILA, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI MOHINDER PAUL KAPILA Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22884 (HC-DELHI)
-
On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for respondents had stated that in cases like the present, scrutiny and verification of the TDS amount utilised has to be manually done according to the established procedure. Along with the status report, learned counsel for respondents has now placed on record the established procedure.
CLEAN WIND POWER KURNOOL PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE 73 1 & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22828 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83071&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the event, the petitioner follows the aforesaid procedure within two days, the respondents are directed to decide the petitioner's request within four weeks thereafter.
CLEAN WIND POWER KURNOOL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22827 (HC-DELHI)
-
Keeping in mind the fact that petitioner was the main person controlling/ directing affairs of the group within and outside India and there is large scale tax evasion and investigation is still in progress and there is a strong apprehension that petitioner may not return and, thus, will not be available for investigation, he cannot be granted permission to travel abroad at this stage.
Piyoosh Kumar Goyal Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22619 (HC-DELHI)
-
When the petitioner pointed out that the tax had been paid, the respondents passed yet another rectification order dated 16th August, 2019 allowing the credit of ‘Self Assessment Tax’ of ₹ 1,32,860/-, but this time raised a fresh demand by adding back an amount donated by the petitioner. When the petitioner pointed out that the donated amount had already been added back by him in his return, the respondents uploaded the very first order / intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act dated 20th November, 2017 whereby the addition in income on account of donation was deleted, but credit of TDS amount of ₹ 37,100/- was once again denied.
AVADH BIHARI KAUSHIK VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22608 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82943&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioner states that the petitioner has been forced to stay in India due to confiscation of his passport initially by the CBI and later on due to its deposit with the trial court. He points out that the passport of the petitioner is still lying deposited with the trial court.
SANJAY JHUNJHUNWALA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22607 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82944&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is open to the statutory authorities to grant relief to deposit an amount lesser than 20% if the facts of the case so warrant.
JINDAL ITF LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22588 (HC-DELHI)
-
Invocation of Rule 27 for challenging the decision of the CIT (A) on the legal ground was well within the scope of Rule 27.
SANJAY SAWHNEY Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22516 (HC-DELHI)
-
Infosys Ltd., it possesses huge tangibles of more than ₹ 1,00,000/- Crores. It is a full-fledged risk bearer with a turnover of more than ₹ 12,000/- Crores. The functions of Infosys Ltd. are highly diversified, and branching out into product conceptualization, core design, research & development to marketing and sales of products, etc. No such function is carried out by the assessee. Being a captive service provider, its function is completely confined to software development services for its AE.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 VERSUS OPEN SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22500 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82916&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Rule 27 embodies a fundamental principal that a Respondent who may not have been aggrieved by the final order of the Lower Authority or the Court, and therefore, has not filed an appeal against the same, is entitled to defend such an order before the Appellate forum on all grounds, including the ground which has been held against him by the Lower Authority, though the final order is in its favour.
SANJAY SAWHNEY VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22499 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82917&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The present matter is not a case of mechanical reliance on circulars/office memorandums. It is a case where proof of identity of the loan depositors, capacity of the creditors to advance loans and genuineness of transaction is in serious dispute. Further, this Court finds that the stay application has been decided on merits and all the submissions made hereinabove by the petitioner have been considered by the statutory authorities below.
JITF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22413 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82856&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Income falling within the ambit of Section 44D of the Act would be liable to be taxed u/s. 44BB(1), if it was in connection with extraction or production of mineral oils, since Section 44BB is a special provision.
PARADIGM GEOPHYSICAL PTY LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22254 (HC-DELHI) · Section 44BB
-
S. 220(6) Recovery of demand: A Petitioner invoking the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court is expected to approach with clean hands. Instead, there is gross suppression and misstatement, which led to a false projection of the outstanding liability due from the petitioner. Also, the Petitioner ought not to have sought adjournment before the CIT(A) on the ground that the earlier year is pending without seeking modification of the Court's order. Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 5 lakh. (Note: The Supreme Court has stayed recovery of the demand)
Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22239 (HC-DELHI) · Section 220(6)
-
For computing the profits and gains of the business of insurance company, the AO had to resort to Section 44 and the prescribed rules, and could not have applied Section 28 to 43B, since the same were excluded from the purview of Section 44.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21222 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 14A, 44
-
The revenue authorities cannot become a stifling force and a stumbling block for trade and commerce. They should realize and be sensitive to the fact that by their acts and omissions, they are impeding the growth of trade and commerce. They are filing the very hen that lays the golden egg. They cannot take a fool hardy and short sighted approach by withholding refunds where due.
Ericsson India Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21221 (HC-DELHI)
-
In the present case, new facts, material or information have come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer by way of the report of DIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) with regards to the doubtful source of the investments made into the petitioner companies. At the time of original assessment, the AO was not aware of or in possession of information which could have indicated that the introduction of share capital from outside India has been routed through a doubtful entity.
EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21106 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82439&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 147 Reopening for Bogus Share Capital u/s 68: The parent co does not have sufficient funds to invest such huge amounts in Indian subsidiaries. The funds are routed through a web of entities spread across various jurisdictions, mostly in tax havens. The investments so made, are required to be investigated and the credit worthiness of the investing company is in jeopardy, in view of the information received from the investigation wing. This exercise can be undertaken during the re-reassessment proceedings to finally determine if the amounts represent undisclosed income of the assessee which is required to be taxed in its hands. At the stage of re-opening, only a reason to believe should exist with regard to escapement of income. Definite conclusion would be drawn after raising queries upon the assessee in the light of s. 68 of the Act (All imp verdicts referred)
Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21096 (HC-DELHI) · Section 147
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.