-
The respondent had sent a letter (Ex.PW-2/1) dated 12.09.2009, requesting for copies of the seized material. The noting on the said material indicates that the respondent was asked to pay a sum of ₹500/- to the PRO Income Tax Department, CR Building, New Delhi. Admittedly, the respondent had paid the said amount and communicated the same by a letter dated 18.08.2009 (Ex.PW-2/2).
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT) VERSUS V.K. GUPTA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21071 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82219&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issuance of the LOC (Look Out Circular) was a serious matter as it contained full particulars of an individual which were sent throughout the world. In view the above said facts and circumstances, there is no justification in keeping the present LOC alive. The same is, therefore, directed to be recalled by the issuing authority.
LAKSHMI SATYANARAYANA DUTT TADIKONDA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21070 (HC-DELHI)
-
The mere disclosure of the identity of the investor in the return of income and the audited financial statements of the assessee as the source of share application money received, is not sufficient to constitute disclosure under the proviso to section 147.
EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21063 (HC-DELHI)
-
The petitioner is not an employee of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited as stated by the petitioner and not denied by the respondents. It is also not the case that the petitioner is not joining the investigation or that he has not co-operated during the investigation, rather according to the respondents he has even made some admissions during the course of the investigation and recording of his statements.
LAKSHMI SATYANARAYANA DUTT TADIKONDA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21056 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82191&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Thereby holding in favour of the assessee that the assessee is entitled to avail of the unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of eight years which was prescribed under the unamended Section 32 of the Act.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 VERSUS M/S. CENRAL ELECTRONICS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21012 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82071&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a well settled principle of law that an assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, is not entitled to claim deduction until the liability for which deduction is claimed has accrued. The Act makes a distinction between actual liability in praesentia. The pay revision of employees of the appellant, a PSU is due every ten years with the expiry of one wage settlement or agreement. Invariably, there is a time lag between expiry of a wage revision and negotiation of a fresh wage revision.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 12 NEW DELHI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20991 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82044&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 132(1) is a serious invasion on the privacy of the citizens, and has to be resorted to when there are pre-existing and pre-recorded good reasons to believe that the action under section 132(1) is called for.
KHEM CHAND MUKIM Vs PR. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20932 (HC-DELHI)
-
Reasons were, firstly, not recorded before undertaking the search and was, therefore, completely unauthorized and a high-handed action on the part of the Respondents. The Respondents do not state that jewellery was concealed, or was kept by the Petitioner surreptitiously. Merely because the assessee was in possession of the same, it cannot be said that the same represents income or property which has not been disclosed or will not be disclosed.
KHEM CHAND MUKIM VERSUS PR. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INV.) -2, A.I.U. & ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20922 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81940&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO has accepted genuineness of the loan transaction. The reasons are completely silent as to how, and on what basis, material or evidence, the AO has come to the conclusion that the loan transaction was an amount received without consideration, so as to bring the same within the ambit of Section 56 of the Act. The nature of the transaction depends solely on the intention of the parties.
VANITA SANJEEV ANAND VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20916 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81933&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The primary or dominant object of the trust satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 2 (15) of the Act. Even if some ancillary or incidental objects are not charitable in nature, the institution would still be considered as a charitable organisation. Merely because some facilities were beyond its main object, that by itself would not deprive the institution of the benefits of a charitable organisation.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – EXEMPTION VERSUS ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20914 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81935&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The primary or dominant object of the trust satisfies the conditions laid down under Section 2 (15) of the Act. Even if some ancillary or incidental objects are not charitable in nature, the institution would still be considered as a charitable organisation.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20910 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 147/148: If the AO has failed to perform his statutory duty, he cannot review his decision and reopen on a change of opinion. Reopening is not an empty formality. There has to be relevant tangible material for the AO to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income and there must be a live link with such material for the formation of the belief. Merely using the expression “failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts” is not enough. The reasons must specify as to what is the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee
BPTP Limited vs. PCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20804 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148
-
The assessee had a window of three years period from 21.12.2011 till 21.12.2014 to construct a house property, calculated from the date of transfer of original asset. In this factual background, we do not find any cogent ground to hold that the Respondents do not fulfill the conditions laid down under Section 54 (1) of the Act so as to deny the benefit of the said provision.
SH. AKSHAY SOBT Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20800 (HC-DELHI) · Section 54
-
Since the department had been unable to give any reason for not sending the complete application of government employee and since furnishing of the APAR for the year 2016 - 2017 was only in the control of the department, government employees should not be made to suffer and should be allowed to make a representation to the Committee to enable it to examine its grievance, as otherwise, a competent departmental candidate would lose-out in the recruitment process.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs ASHOK KUMAR SAROHA AND ORS.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20797 (HC-DELHI)
-
On a reading of the impugned order passed by the AAR, it is evident that the said findings are only prima facie, which means, that they are not final and binding, and that they have not been arrived at after detailed examination of the materials placed before the authority or upon consideration of the rival submissions.
ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20776 (HC-DELHI)
-
Fundamental premise is now shaken, since Moral has been found to be a completely tainted entity embroiled in very large scale dubious transactions of providing accommodation entries. If the transactions undertaken by SIPL with Moral are indeed not genuine, as now reasonably believed by the AO, it would not be correct to say that SIPL had disclosed fully and truly all the material facts for its assessment for the relevant assessment year.
Vedanta Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20769 (HC-DELHI)
-
We cannot understand as to how the payment of EDC-being in the nature of statutory fees, could be subject to withholding tax under Section 194 of the Act, a provision that is applicable to dividends. The nature of dividend payment is intrinsically different from EDC and, therefore, the apparent reason for reopening seems to be erroneous, irrational and fallacious.
BPTP LIMITED Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20746 (HC-DELHI)
-
Subsequent to conclusion of assessment, when it comes to light that the assessee has had financial/ monetary dealings with dubious entities/ persons, giving rise to a serious and well-founded doubt about the creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction, then the endeavour of the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment in terms of section 147/148 of the Act should normally not be thwarted by the Court, if the same is done within the limitation period, and the same is not merely a case of change of opinion on the same set of facts.
RDS Project Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20733 (HC-DELHI)
-
Merely because the assessee is charging for certain goods and services, it does not render such activities as commercial activities and the fact that the AO has accepted that the assessee is promoting public interest as provided in the proviso to Section 2(15), there cannot be any doubt that the assessee should be regarded as charitable organisation and given the full benefit of exemption provided to such organisations under the Act.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VERSUS INDIA HABITAT CENTRE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20727 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81737&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In order to claim deduction, the assessee has to satisfy requirements of Section 37(1) of the Act, which lays down several conditions, such as-the expenditure should not be in the nature described under Section 30 to 36. It should not be in the nature of capital expenditure, it should be incurred in the previous year, it should be in respect of business carried by the assessee and be expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 VERSUS FRONTINER LAND DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20721 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81733&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.