Delhi High Court held In the case of S.N. Ojha vs. Commissioner of Customs that apart from the statement recorded, there is sufficient corroboration by the fact that as many as 100 consignments were allowed to be cleared without proper verification.
In the case of Devang Paper Mills Pvt Ltd Vs UOI, it was held that merely mentioning wrong code in the process, cannot result into such harsh consequence of the entire payment not being recognized as valid, incurring further liability of repayment of the basic duty with interest and penalties.
Department cannot file FIR under provisions of IPC for alleged non-payment of Service tax as the Finance Act being a special and complete Code prevails over general provisions of IPC- Ajay Kumar Sandhu Vs. State of Haryana [2015 (62) taxmann.com281 (Punjab & Haryana)]
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.
