-
HC - Matter referred to larger bench on whether the interpretation of Sec. 147 read with Explanation (3) is restrictive.
Jakhotia Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14275 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 279(2): Entire law on the compounding of offenses u/s 276C, 277 read with S. 278D explained in the context of whether the CBDT Guidelines on compounding of offenses dated 23.12.2014 prescribing eligibility conditions and the formula for calculating the compounding fee are valid or unreasonable
Vikram Singh vs. UOI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14239 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 279(2)
-
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: In the absence of any overt act, which disclosed conscious and material suppression, invocation of Explanation 7 to s. 271(1)(c) in a blanket manner could not only be injurious to the assessee but ultimately would be contrary to the purpose for which it was engrafted in the statute. It might lead to a rather peculiar situation where the assessees who might otherwise accept such determination may be forced to litigate further to escape the clutches of Explanation 7
Pr CIT vs. Verizon India Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14120 (HC-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 276C/277 Prosecution: Submission that claim of depreciation on land was a “mere clerical mistake” is not acceptable if the assessee did not file a revised return to correct the alleged mistake. A claim in a return which is scrutinized by the auditors and the directors cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake
Ambience Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13930 (HC-DELHI) · Sections. 276C, 277
-
S. 264 Revision: Powers and duties of the CIT while dealing with a revision application filed by an assessee explained
Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13884 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 264
-
S. 263 Revision: The failure to issue notice on any particular issue does not vitiate the exercise of power u/s 263, as long as the assessee is heard and given opportunity. The lack of opportunity at the revisional stage does not vitiate the entire order, or the proceedings. It is a curable defect. The CIT has power to consider all aspects which were the subject matter of the AO’s order, if in his opinion, they are erroneous, despite the assessee’s appeal on that or some other aspect
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. Pr CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13805 (HC-DELHI) · Section 263
-
S. 145(2) ICDS: S. 145 (2) has to be read down to restrict power of the Central Government to notify ICDS that do not seek to override binding judicial precedents or provisions of the Act. If s. 145 (2) is not so read down it would be ultra vires the Act and Article 141 read with Article 144 and 265 of the Constitution. The ICDS which overrule the provisions of the Act, the Rules thereunder and the judicial precedents applicable thereto, are struck down as ultra vires the Act. To that extent, Notification Nos. 87 and 88 dated 29.09.2016 and Circular No. 10 of 2017 issued by the CBDT are also held to be ultra vires the Act and struck down as such
The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13804 (HC-DELHI) · Section 145(2)
-
HC - Whether to segregate or not segregate two transactions (clubbing of two distinct revenue streams), is entirely a fact dependent exercise that cannot per se be treated as a question of law.
Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) Versus M/s. ESPN Software India Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13797 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70296&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Explained law on CIT's revisionary power. CIT has powers u/s 263 in respect of issues which were subject matter of scrutiny in original assessment order. No merger with with CIT(A)'s order.
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13794 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - No denial of deduction u/s 80-IC since AO’s conclusion that the profits were “more than ordinary” was based on surmises and conjectures.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-12 Versus Kuljeet Singh Kochar
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13786 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70259&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Strikes down ICDS I, II, III, VI, VII, Part A of ICDS VIII as ultra vires of the Act as well as contrary to settled position of law laid down by Supreme Court.
Chamber of Tax Consultants Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13781 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - TPA - Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables perse cannot be treated as a question of law unless the same is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant consideration or excluded relevant factors in the ALP determination that impact significantly.
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -9 Versus WSP Consultants India Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13776 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70248&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writs allowed - Re-opening quashed on the ground that it is difficult to believe that the Revenue was not aware of the assessee having a PE in India, since in respect of earlier AYs the matter is being contested as well as pending at various levels.
M/S ESS DISTRIBUTION (MAURITIUS) S.N.C.ET COMPAGNIE Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13737 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Quashes rejection of assessee’s settlement application before ITSC as the dismissal of the Petitioner’s applications by the ITSC would result in a failure to examine the matter comprehensively and in entirety.
Radico NV Distilleries Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-Iii
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13704 (HC-DELHI)
-
Transfer Pricing: Steps to be undertaken in identification of comparable transactions/entities while fixing the ALP and the margin explained. Though the TNMM method allows broad flexibility tolerance in the selection of comparables, broad functionality is not sufficient to find the comparable entity. There must be similarity with the controlled transaction
Avenues Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13657 (HC-DELHI)
-
Transfer Pricing: A giant risk taking company like Infosys Technologies with huge significant intangibles and having huge assets leading to the exorbitant turnover is not comparable with a captive unit which is subject to minimum/ limited risk. The fact that the functional profile of Infosys is similar to that of the assessee is irrelevant
CIT. vs. Ut Starcom Inc.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13648 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 147/ 148: Despite numerous judgements on the reopening of assessments, the Revenue authorities are repeating the same errors. Accordingly, Guidelines are laid down and the Revenue is directed to adhere to them
Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13647 (HC-DELHI) · Sections. 147, 148
-
HC - There is no need to distinguish between capital and revenue expenditure in case of deduction u/s. 35(2AB) and entire in-house R&D expenditure to be allowed without bifurcating the same into revenue and capital expenditure.
Eicher Motors Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13636 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 35(2AB)
-
Search assessment u/s 153C: Proceedings u/s 153C of the Act can be initiated against a person only if the seized materials "belongs" to that person. It is not sufficient for the Revenue to urge that the seized document "pertains" to the person. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 290 (SC) followed
CIT. vs. Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13620 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 153C
-
S. 195 TDS: Entire law explained on whether payment of commission to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is liable to tax in India u/s 5(2)(b) and 9(1)(i) on the ground that the "source" of the payment is in India and that the insertion of the Explanation to s. 9(2) with retrospective effect by the Finance Act 2010 makes such payments taxable
Divya Creation vs. ACIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13619 (HC-DELHI) · Section 195
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.