-
S. 292C: An addition cannot be made on the basis of a handwritten loose paper which does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee and if AO has not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the assessee. An addition cannot be made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork and without bringing corroborative material on record
CIT vs. Praveen Juneja (No. 1)
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13215 (HC-DELHI) · Section 292C
-
S. 153B(2)(a): Merely visiting the premises on the pretext of concluding the search but not actually finding anything new for being seized cannot give rise to a second panchnama so as to extend the limitation period for passing the s. 153A assessment order. In such event, there would be no occasion to draw up a panchnama at all. The visit and the panchnama drawn up on that date cannot lead to postponement of the period for completion of assessment with reference to s. 153B (2) (a) of the Act
Pr CIT Vs. PPC Business And Products Pvt Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13206 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153B(2)(a)
-
Whether subsidy is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt: If the recipient has the flexibility of using it for any purpose and is not confined to using it for capital purposes, it means that the policy makers envision greater profitability as an incentive for investors to expand units. Such subsidy is revenue in nature and is taxable as profits
CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13188 (HC-DELHI)
-
GST on legal services: There is no clarity whether all legal services (not restricted to representational services) provided by legal practitioners would be governed by the reverse charge mechanism. Legal practitioners are under genuine doubt whether they require to get themselves registered. The Court directs that no coercive action be taken against any lawyer or law firms for non-compliance with any legal requirement under the CGST Act, the IGST Act or the DGST Act till a clarification is issued by the Central Government and the GNCTD and till further orders in that regard by the Court
JK Mittal & Co. vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13175 (HC-DELHI)
-
Condonation of delay: Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The mere fact that the AO was busy in other time-bearing assessments is not an excuse for delay particularly given the fact that s. 260A provides a long time period of 120 days. Every day’s delay has to be explained
CIT vs. Historic Infracon
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12956 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 147/148 reassessment has to be based on "fresh material". A reopening based on reappraisal of existing material is invalid. The assessee's duty is only to disclose facts and not to make inferences. Consolidated Photo 281 ITR 394 (Del) is not good law
DIT vs. Rolls Royce Industrial Power India Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12923 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 147, 148
-
S. 153A: Entire law explained on whether concluded assessments can be reopened u/s 153A even in the absence of incriminating material found during the search in the light of the apparently conflicting verdicts in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) and Dayawanti Gupta v. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del)
Pr CIT vs. Meetu Gutgutia
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12922 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153A
-
S. 132/153A: Important law explained on the preconditions necessary for the department to initiate valid search and seizure action u/s 132 and whether the assessee is entitled to challenge the same. Consequences of the search being declared void on the s. 153A assessment also explained
Ameeta Mehra vs. ADIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12921 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 132, 153A
-
HC - The mere fact that the interest u/s. 220(2) was 1.5 times the tax by itself does not have any relevance for determining whether the Assessee was suffering from any genuine hardship.
Pioneer Overseas Corporation USA Vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12870 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 220(2)
-
Bogus share capital: Fact that the investigation wing’s report alleged that the assessee was beneficiary to bogus transactions and that the identity of shareholders, genuineness etc was suspect is not sufficient. The AO is bound to conduct scrutiny of documents produced by the assessee and cannot rest content by placing reliance on the report of the investigation wing
CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12869 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - No TDS u/s 195 on payment of export commission for using technology licensed by by a foreign company as the same is neither royalty nor FTS,
CIT vs. Hero Motocorp Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12818 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Once an arbitral award was made by the Court, mere stay of the decree by higher authorities would not relieve assessee of its obligation to pay interest in terms thereof. Liability to pay interest under arbitral award commenced in the year in which such decree was passed.
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12756 (HC-DELHI)
-
Strictures passed regarding the "standard excuses" of the department for delay in filing appeals, namely, budgetary constraints, lack of infrastructure to make soft copies, change of standing counsel etc
Pr CIT vs. Diana Builders & Contractors Pvt. Ltd
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12735 (HC-DELHI)
-
S. 279: As there is no time limit prescribed for filing an application for compounding of an offense, the CBDT is not entitled to reject an application on the ground of 'inordinate delay'. The CBDT has no jurisdiction to demand that the assessee pay a 'pre-deposit' as a pre-condition to considering the compounding application. The larger question as whether in the garb of a Circular the CBDT can prescribe the compounding fee in the absence of such fee being provided for either in the statute or prescribed under the rules is left open
Vikram Singh vs. UOI
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12684 (HC-DELHI) · Section 279
-
HC - Application for compounding of offences u/s 279(2) cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation or on the ground that application was not accompanied by compounding fees/charges prescribed by CBDT circular.
Vikram Singh Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12631 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - The expression used in the Income Tax itself is “a bill of exchange”, which is a class of instruments, that cannot be ignored or disallowed by virtue of Section 40A(3) read with Rules 6 DD of the Income Tax Rules. No disallowance u/s 40A(3) in respect of banker's cheques.
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 11 Versus Shri Inder Pal Singh Wadhawan
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12574 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68841&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 195-I: S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act distinguishes between 'premium' for acquiring the lease and 'rent' for enjoying user of the property. Payment towards 'premium' for the lease (even if paid annually) is a capital payment and is not subject to s. 194-I TDS. CBDT Circular No. 35/2016 dated 13.10.2016 referred
Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12329 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 105, 195
-
S. 271(1)(c): Entire law explained on whether levy of penalty is automatic if return filed by the assessee u/s 153A discloses higher income than in the return filed u/s 139(1) in the context of the law as it stood prior to, and after, the insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c). Also, the law on levy of penalty on revised returns explained
Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12328 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Where income and assets are disclosed in the books of account and no incriminating material is found during search and seizure, addition in the block assessment not justified.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (central-I) Versus Pinaki Misra & Sangeeta Misra
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12304 (HC-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68608&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Absence of any material seized during the search proceeding could not have justified afresh examination of the valuation issue.
Anita Rani Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12302 (HC-DELHI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.