Delhi High Court held In the case of Arun Khanna vs. The ICAI & ANR that the notice issued to the ICAI for demerger of the firms was as per the notified rules in this regard. As per these rules it is clear that no concurrence / acceptance from all partners is required and can be effected
Delhi High Court held In the case of Rockland Hotels Ltd. vs. IT Settlement Commission that as per clauses (a)(v) and (a)(vi) of section 245C , only if a director of the petitioner companies has a substantial interest in the specified person (company), then, the petitioner companies
Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. All India Personality Enhancement & Cultural Centre for Scholars Society that he expression ‘undisclosed income’ would connote assets or income, which the Assessee believes to be taxable
a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person ] and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against
Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)-Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jai puria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person.
The Hon’ble (P&H) High Court in the case of Pr.C.I.T. vs ITAT Delhi Bench, New Delhi and anothers while dealing with the scope of power of Tribunal for grant of stay against the prosecution proceedings held that once
In the case of Vishal Garg & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., Punjab & Haryana HC instructed CBDT extend due date of Tax Audit cases to 31st October 2015 from existing 30th September 2015. Its not clear if the due date for non audit cases also been extended
Delhi High Court held In the case of Oracle Systems Corporation vs. ADIT that it is clear that when a regular assessment is completed in terms of Section 143(3), a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed upon a proper application of mind.
A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay prosecution. The said finding is the bone of contention between the parties. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh),
In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding.
