Hero Motocorp Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI Regarding Ground No. 16 relating to disallowance of reimbursement of foreign travelling expenses to directors/employees amounting to 7.38 crores, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance was made on the ground of non-submission of evidence/proof of actual expenses incurred by employees. […]
Grasim Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) By way of this stay application, the assessee applicant has sought a stay on collection/ recovery of tax and interest demands aggregating to Rs 3,786.34 crores in respect of the dividend distribution tax (DDT), and interest thereon, under section 115O/115Q r.w.s. 2(22)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on, what […]
Gopal Gupta Vs Principal Additional Director General (Delhi High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Show Cause Notice dated 26th September, 2019 issued to the petitioner subsequent to the arrest, search and seizure dated 24th April, 2019 and 25th April, 2019 as also […]
Delhi HC stays indiscriminate CGST North Delhi Commissionerate summons in Ankit Bindal’s case. The summons are withdrawn on 12/04/2021, setting a precedent against arbitrary summons.
No addition can be made to the income of the assessee in this asst. years, as in the view of the AO the outstanding liability in question is bogus and non-existent. The question of cessation of such non-existent as bogus liability does not arise. Hence, Sec. 41(1) cannot be applied. Only when there is a genuine liability and there is cessation of such liability or it is written off in the books of account, then Sec. 41(1) of the Act can be applied.
The provisions of the DTAA cannot be thrusted upon the Assessee simply because the Assessee is a tax resident of a country with which India has entered into a tax treaty or on account of the mere perception of the AO that the Assessee may claim benefits under the tax treaty in subsequent years. 2. Short term losses should be eligible to be carried forward.
Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. State of Telangana (Telangana High Court) In the last one year, we have noticed at least 200 cases where the Assessing Officer under the CST Act has not issued show cause notice or if they issued notice, they have not considered the response of the assessees, and mechanically confirmed the demand […]
Sudesh Kedia Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) 1. According to the prosecution, the Appellant was providing financial support to TPC and the material gathered during investigation discloses that the Appellant has committed offences under Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 2. The Appellant stated that the terror suspects contacted him […]
In that view of the matter, it is clarified that while the question of the Petitioner being entitled to refund will await the final decision of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLPs, the Opposite Parties will not require the Petitioners before this Court hereafter to pay IGST on ocean freight until further orders.
Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) We are of the view that ‘voluntary statements’ recorded before the Senior Intelligence Officer cannot constitute pre-show cause notice consultation as envisaged in the paragraph 5 of the 2017 Master Circular. Consultation entails discussion and deliberation. There is back and […]
