In his Budget Speech 2014¬-15, the Union Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitley had announced the setting-up of a High Level Committee (HLC) to interact with trade and industry and ascertain areas where clarity on tax laws is required. Accordingly, a High Level Committee (HLC) was constituted with the approval of the Finance Minister on 26th November, 2014 to interact with trade and industry on tax laws,
In the case of National Petroleum Construction Company Vs. DIT in ITA Nos. 143, 144, 533/2013 and 795/2014, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its order dt. 13.08.2015, dt. 20.08.2015 and 28.09.2015 has directed the Income Tax Department to formulate and implement a standard operating procedure on the following three issues:
No.F.3(315)/Policy/VAT/2015/ 1003-1014 Dated:12/11/2015 Extend the last date for filing of online returns for the 1st and 2nd quarter of the year 2015-16, in Forms EC-II and EC-III to 30/11/2015.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vishwanath Khanna vs. CCIT that as per section 293, no civil suit lies against the Income Tax Department with respect to any dues claimed from the Income Tax Department if such dues are/can be the subject matter of proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the purpose of transfer pricing is to benchmark transactions between related parties in order to discover the true price if such entities were unrelated.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Jet Lite (India) Ltd. vs. CIT that the ITAT has rightly pointed out that the supplement rental was within the ambit of the original provision of Section 10 (15A). Post amendment w.e.f. 1st April 1996
Delhi High Court held In the case of The Principal CIT vs. Samcor Glass Ltd. & M/s Samtel Color Ltd. that it is a settled position of law that reopening of assessment beyond 4 years is not sustainable unless there was a failure by the Assessee to disclose any material particulars
Delhi High Court held In the case of R.S. Bedi vs. ACIT that no addition u/s 69B is maintainable on the sole basis of DVO report. In the given case, although AO found some document during the search, but the same was not the basis for addition as also noted by ITAT.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Haryana Paneer Bhandar vs. CIT. that the Revenue has been unable to produce the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person. Consequently, on this short ground of there being no satisfaction note, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 158BD.
Delhi High Court held In the case of The CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal that the Assessee had an explanation for not retracting the statement earlier. He also furnished an explanation for the cash that found in the hands of his employee and this was verifiable from the books of accounts.
