-
HC - Not correct to hold that Sec. 153(2A) limitation applied only where there was complete setting aside of assessment and not when the proceedings were remanded to AO with directions from ITAT and covered only few issues.
Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13611 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 153(2A)
-
S. 263 Revision: For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263, the conclusion of the CIT that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such inquiry. The second option available u/s 263 (1) of sending the entire matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment can be exercised by the PCIT only after he undertakes an inquiry himself and not otherwise
PCIT. vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13541 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 263
-
HC - ITAT placed an unfair burden on the Assessee to prove that the expenditure paid to Doctor was incurred bonafide for the business purposes of the Assessee since Assessee had placed all the relevant details thereby discharging the initial onus.
Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13498 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69844&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 263: Lack of inquiry vs. Inadequate inquiry: Revision on the ground that the AO did not conduct a detailed inquiry on account of paucity of time is unfair to the assessee and invalid (Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 (SC) & Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) distinguished
Pr CIT vs. Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13489 (HC-DELHI) · Section 263
-
HC - Television news software exported falls within the definition ‘customized electronic data’ occurring in clause (b) of the Explanation to Sec. 80HHE.
CIT vs. NDTV
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13486 (HC-DELHI) · Section 80HHE
-
S. 115JB: As Insurance companies are required to prepare accounts as per the Insurance Act and not as per Schedule VI to the Companies Act, s. 115JB does not apply. Insurance companies are not taxed on commercial profits but on profits as computed under the Insurance Act. Accordingly, income earned on sale/redemption of investments is not chargeable to tax
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13472 (HC-DELHI) · Section 115JB
-
S. 68: The use of deceptive loan entries to bring unaccounted money into banking channels plagues the legitimate economy of our country. The mere fact that the identity of the lenders is established & payments are made by cheques does not mean they are genuine. If the lenders do not have the financial strength to lend such huge sums and if there is no explanation as to their relationship with the assessee, no collateral security and no agreement, the transactions have to be treated as bogus unexplained credits
Pr CIT vs. Bikram Singh
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13471 (HC-DELHI) · Section 68
-
HC - ITAT, turning a blind eye, has erred in holding that, assessee has discharged his onus merely because the unsecured loan was advanced through the banking channels. Creditors fail the test of creditworthiness and the transactions fail the test of genuineness. Additions u/s 68 confirmed.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 7 Versus Bikram Singh
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13442 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69789&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Simply establishing creditors’ identity and routing the transaction through cheque, cannot by itself mean that the transactions are genuine. as assessee failed to discharge the ‘initial’ onus of establishing creditworthiness and genuineness qua the creditors, addition u/s 68 confirmed.
PCIT. vs. Bikram Singh
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13441 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 144C DRP: Action of the DRP in granting time to the assessee till 24th July 2017 to submit documents but in still passing the order on the same day itself and that too without taking on record the documents produced by the assessee is clearly unreasonable and in violation of the principles of natural justice
Systra SA Project Office vs. DRP
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13435 (HC-DELHI) · Section 144C
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Entire law explained on what constitutes proper recording of satisfaction by the AO, scope of disallowance of interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(i), admin expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), need for nexus between borrowed funds and tax-free investments and power of the ITAT to remand to the AO
H. T. Media Limited vs. Pr CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13434 (HC-DELHI) · Section 14A
-
HC - The non-compete fee cannot be termed as a camouflage or well- orchestrated plan to avoid tax recognizing taxpayer’s stature in advertising industry. Non-compete fee was a non-taxable capital receipt.
CIT. vs. Tara Sinha
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13410 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Lays down the legal position in respect of an accommodation entry provider seeking the benefit of 'peak credit'. No benefit of ‘Peak credit’ as deposits remain unexplained.
CIT. vs. D.K. Garg
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13380 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 271AAA: No penalty u/s 271AAA can be levied in respect of undisclosed income found during a search u/s 132 if the AO did not put a specific query to the assessee by drawing his attention to s. 271 AAA and asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been derived
Pr CIT. vs. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13374 (HC-DELHI) · S. 271AAA
-
S. 68 "Peak Credits": An accommodation entry provider wanting to avail the benefit of the 'peak credit' has to make a clean breast of all the facts within his knowledge concerning the credit entries in the accounts. He has to explain with sufficient detail the source of all the deposits in his accounts as well as the corresponding destination of all payments from the accounts. The assessee should be able to show that money has been transferred through banking channels from the bank account of creditors to the bank account of the assessee, the identity of the creditors and that the money paid from the accounts of the assessee has returned to the bank accounts of the creditors. The assessee has to discharge the primary onus of disclosure in this regard
CIT. vs. D. K. Garg
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13370 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 68
-
Severe strictures passed to condemn the illegal practice of the Dept of collecting undated cheques from taxpayers after search/ survey without even quantifying the extent of duty evasion. Attempt of the unscrupulous officers is to 'negotiate' the evaded duty by threats and coercion. It is not rule of law but anarchy unleashed by holders of public office. It is an abuse of law which has to be stopped
Digipro Import & Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13361 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuring the presence of the deponent cannot be shifted to the assessees. The onus is on the Revenue to ensure his presence
Pr CIT. vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13360 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 68
-
HC - Depreciation not to be deducted while computing exempt income from operating warehouses under erstwhile Sec. 10(29).
Central Warehousing Corporation vs. PCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13342 (HC-DELHI)
-
GST on legal services: Finance Ministry directed to explain legal sanctity of Press Release dated 15th July 2017 that all legal services will be governed by Reverse Charge Mechanism. In the interim no coercive action would be taken against advocates providing legal services for non compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST, DGST, or IGST Act
JK Mittal & Co. vs. UOI (No. 2)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13235 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 292C: Addition cannot be made on the basis of a document which is silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question and does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures
CIT vs. Praveen Juneja (No. 2)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13216 (HC-DELHI) · Section 292C
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.