Delhi High Court held In the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that the settled legal position as far as Section 145 is concerned is that it is not open to an AO to reject the accounts of an Assessee unless he comes to a determination that notified accounting standards have not been regularly followed by the Assessee.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri vs. DCIT that revised return relate back to return originally filed, minus the omissions and wrong statements. Even if the revised return replaces the original return, the assessment proceedings leading up to the revised return do not get obliterated.
In order to invoke Section 4 (6) (b) (ii) of the PG Act to forfeit an amount of gratuity payable to an employee, the condition precedent is that terminated employee must be convicted for an offence for the time being in force and that offence must be an offence involving moral turpitude.
1. Invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus or suitable direction to respondent No. 2/Registrar, Co-operative Societies for appropriate amendment in the service rules in the light of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition […]
1. Superb question of law involved in this batch of writ petitions is whether the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is justified in holding that “Commission Vendors” engaged by the petitioner/its predecessors-in interest for selling its food products can be considered to be its employees for the purpose of Section 2 (f) of the Employees’ Provident […]
Delhi High Court held In the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT that the Court is satisfied that in the present case, the Assessee is carrying on business as an independent enterprise and is incurring AMP expenses for its own benefit and not at the behest of the AE.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd. that the receipt by the Assessee as a result of the termination of the JVA during AY 1998-99 was a capital receipt but in light of Section 55 (2) (a) as it stood at the relevant time, the said amount cannot be brought to capital gains tax.
Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT vs. Royal Jordanian Airlines that section 44BBA is not charging provision, but only a machinery provision; it cannot preclude an Assessee from producing books of accounts to show that in any particular AY there is no taxable income. In other words
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Provestment Securities Pvt. Ltd. that we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the question whether an investment had been made or not is a matter of fact and the same cannot be presumed.
Delhi High Court held In the case of: CIT vs. Suman Dhamija that in the present case the Assessee is justified in contending that although award has been made and the compensation payable has been enhanced, the amount itself is in dispute, that dispute is pending in the Court.
