-
If this plea of the Petitioner is not even looked at/ examined by the DRP, it would tantamount to a jurisdictional error. To relegate the Petitioner to the appellate remedies, where he would have to join the queue, in order to obtain an order of remand to DRP, would be unjustified. The DRP 'merely endorsed and followed' the reasoning provided by Delhi ITAT without giving any indication as to how the same was applicable to assessee while dealing with its foremost objection regarding the provisions of the Treaty.
P.D.R SOLUTIONS FZC Vs DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL- 2
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20244 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 10(38) Bogus LTCG from Penny Stock: The analysis of balance sheet & P&L account of the Co shows that astronomical increase in share price which led to returns of 491% for assesee was completely unjustified. The EPS & other financials parameters cannot justify price at which assessee claims to have sold shares to obtain Long Terms Capital Gains. It is not explained as to why anyone would purchase said shares at such high price
Suman Poddar vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20196 (HC-DELHI) · Section 10(38)
-
There is no merit in the present appeal and no question arises for consideration. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Genpact India (Previously Known As Genpact Infrastructure (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20175 (HC-DELHI)
-
We dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to provide to the petitioner within one week the reasons recorded for issuance of the impugned certificate fixing the rate of deduction of TDS at 4%. It shall be open to the petitioner to assail the said reasons in case the petitioner is aggrieved thereby.
JIANGDONG FITTINGS EQUIPMENT CO LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20142 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79981&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On the basis of the reasons recorded in the impugned order, it cannot be said that there was no genuine attempt on the part of the Assessing Officer to understand the nature of his business, its method of accounting, or to understand the nuances of the books of accounts or documents. The impugned order clearly reflects the reasons for ordering a special audit. AO initially issued a notice under Section 142(1) on 03.08.2018 along with detailed questionnaire including the reason for selection of case for scrutiny under Section 143 (3).
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED, RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20109 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79928&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The show-cause notice issued on 21st June 2019, is under Section 26(1) of the Benami Act and not under Section 26 (3). The reasons for this are not far to seek. The scheme of the Benami Act, under Section 5, provides for confiscation of any property which is subject matter of a benami transaction, by the Central Government. An Adjudicating Authority is appointed under Section 7.
INITIATING OFFICER, ACIT BENAMI PROHIBITION VERSUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACT, 1988 & ORS.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20108 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79936&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In Section 193 declaration made by misrepresentation or suppression of facts such declaration shall be void and shall be deemed never to have been made under the scheme. There is no provision as such in the IDS to afford the declarant a hearing prior to passing an order holding such declaration to be void for being in contravention of Section 193 of the FA, 2016.
Ankush Jain Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20075 (HC-DELHI)
-
The language of Article 22(3) is unambiguous. What falls within its ambit is only income received from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or gambling or betting of any nature. Amounts received by the decree holder as compensation, towards breach of contract cannot fall within its ambit.
Xstrata Coal Marketing AG Vs Dalmia Bharat (Cement) Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20059 (HC-DELHI)
-
The assessee was only a conduit through whom the funds were floated. Test of human probabilities was not applicable here since there was no contrary evidence to draw other inferences.
Anoop Jain Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19972 (HC-DELHI) · Section 69A
-
The concept of make available requires that the fruits of the services should remain available to the service recipients in some concrete shape such as technical knowledge, experience, skills etc. which is met in the instant case as can be reflected from the nature and duration of the contract. The short durability or permanent usage of the service envisages by the concept of make available services remains at the disposal of their service recipients.
H. J. Heinz Company Vs ADIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19952 (HC-DELHI)
-
A plain reading of Article 22(3) of the DTAA shows that the amounts received by the decree holder as compensation, towards breach of contract cannot fall within its ambit. The language of Article 22(3) is unambiguous. What falls within its ambit is only income received from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or gambling or betting of any nature. It is only such income which can be taxed, if at all, in India.
GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG VERSUS DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19949 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79723&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the Assessee is only a borrower from VCIPL of a sum of ₹ 16.73 crores (which the AO has restricted to ₹ 6.40 crores to the extent of available accumulated profits). Merely because Verizon Singapore holds more than 10% of the voting power in both VCIPL as well as the Assessee will not permit the Revenue to tax the aforementioned loan as a deemed dividend in the hands of the Assessee which is only the borrower. The said amount which is borrowed by the Assessee from VCIPL, in which Verizon Singapore holds more than 10% of voting power can if it all, be taxed only as deemed dividend in the hands of Verizon Singapore and not the Assessee. No substantial question of law arises.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 VERSUS VERIZON INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19945 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79728&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mandatory period of limitation under Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be sought to be defeated by delaying the dispatch of the relevant order of the ITAT to the concerned 'jurisdictional' CIT. What is relevant is when the CIT (Judicial) representing the Department before the ITAT received the order, which in any event is generally made available in the public domain soon after the order is pronounced.
GE ENERGY PARTS INC Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19943 (HC-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Deduction under sub-Section 1 of 80IA shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant and the Assessee furnishes on furnishing his return of income, the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant.
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS GUJARAT GUARDIAN LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19939 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79703&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The parties have confirmed the sales made to the assessee and this was the first year of assessee’s business, therefore, there was all the more reason for the suppliers to insist for cash payments. If the AO had a doubt about the genuineness of the above purchases, the AO could have summoned one or all of those three parties and asked them questions in relation to the confirmation letters, to satisfy himself that the contents thereof were, in fact, based on actual purchases for which cash was paid by the Assessee. He could have asked them to produce their books of accounts, bill books, etc.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – X VERSUS MRS. KRISHNA GUPTA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19938 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79704&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If the expenditure is not to be treated as capital expenditure, then it will have to be treated as revenue expenditure was perhaps not addressed in the manner it should have been treated by the ITAT. Court considers it appropriate to remit the matter to the ITAT for decision afresh on the treatment to be accorded to the expenditure incurred by the Assessee of the aforementioned sum of ₹ 30.86 crores and whether in particular, it should be treated as a revenue expenditure or as capital expenditure.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ELEL HOTEL & INVESTMENT LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19936 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79706&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The case was processed u/s 143(1) disallowing the deduction claim u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of ₹ 1,24,04,182/- and demand of ₹ 42,83,943/- has been raised. There is an obvious non-application of mind by the AO to the above fact. If indeed the above deduction claimed by the Petitioner was not allowed in the first instance, and the intimation sent to the Petitioner u/s 143(1) indicated this, then the question of any income escaping assessment on that score did not arise.
SHREE BHAVANI POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23 (3), & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19935 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79707&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If an officer of the Department is allowed to choose a date on which a copy of the order which has to be given effect to or acted upon is sent to the officer concerned, it will defeat the very purpose for which the legislature has stipulated definite time limits in various provisions of the Act for the authorities to perform their statutory tasks in a time bound manner.
GE ENERGY PARTS INC, M/S. NUOVO PIGNONE, M/S. GE JAPAN LTD., GE ENGINE SERVICES DISTRIBUTION LLC VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19931 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79693&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that an acknowledgement may have been issued in Form- 4 by the CIT, CPC did not provide any immunity to the Petitioners if it was found that the declaration was contrary to Section 193 of the FA, 2016 which begins with a non-obstante clause.
ANKUSH JAIN, VAIBHAV JAIN VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19930 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79694&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is clear from the correspondence with Audit Party that there was no independent decision arrived at by the AO to form ‘reasons to believe’ for reopening of the assessment after being satisfied that there was an escapement of income. The above correspondence also indicates that not once but on two separate occasions the AO clearly formed the opinion that this was not a case fit for reopening of the assessment and that the AO was constrained, notwithstanding that opinion, to reopen the assessment on the express instructions issued to him vide letter dated 11th December 2012 of the Addl.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-21 VERSUS LALIT BAGAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19929 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79695&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.