Delhi High Court

Appeal cannot be dismissed Merely For Non-Prosecution

Pradeep Kumar Jindal  Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)

Pradeep Kumar Jindal  Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) In the present case, admittedly, there is no adjudication by the ITAT on merits. In our opinion, the order dated 10th December, 2015 of the ITAT, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner for non-prosecution and not on merits, as the ITAT was required to do notwithstanding the […]...

Read More

Order of transfer passed without mala fide reason after giving proper Opportunity was valid

Dev Wines Sales Corporation Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)

Dev Wines Sales Corporation Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) An order of transfer is more in the nature of an administrative exercise of power and the scope of interference wherein in any case is limited and unless the administrative power is shown to have been exercised without authority under the law and/or for mala fide […]...

Read More

No Section 68 Addition for Amount Already Shown Under Sales

PCIT Vs Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

PCIT Vs Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) On the aspect of additions being made under Section 68 of the Act, we notice that the ITAT was intrigued with the approach of the AO, and rightly so, in our view. The Assessee had worked out the business income after considering the sales and purchases […]...

Read More

HC explains validity of invocation of section 153A based on statement recorded in search action against a third person

PCIT Vs Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (Delhi High Court)

PCIT Vs Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (Delhi High Court) Section 153A Invalid Where Statement Belonging And Pertaining To Person Other Than Searched Person Used To Assume Jurisdiction and Only Section 153C Can Be Invoked And Without Cross Examination Of Witness There Can Be No Valid Proceedings Under Law.    The preliminary question under cons...

Read More

HC directs PCIT to correct apparent mistake in Form-3 of Vivad Se Vishwas

Ashish Saraf Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court)

Ashish Saraf Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) The petition impugns the Certificate dated 9th January, 2021 issued by the respondent in Form-3, under Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, vide Acknowledgment No.158235220090121, to the extent the same treats the case of the petitioner as a search case. On a perusal […]...

Read More

HC requests Delhi Governor to notify Nomination of member of Advance Ruling Authority 

Pernod Ricard Pvt Ltd Vs Authority For Advance Ruling GST (Delhi High Court)

Having regard to the fact that since November, 2020, the Advance Ruling Authority has not been conducting the hearings, we make a request to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor to take up the matter on priority basis and process the nomination received from the CBIC at the earliest....

Read More

Commission Expenses Disallowance – HC restored case to AO

Kunwar Tuli Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)

Kunwar Tuli Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the part of the commission expenses paid on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the requisite evidences, including contract agreement between the parties and the assessee sought to justify the commission expenses only in view of the tax [&he...

Read More

Regular Books of Accounts cannot be termed as Incriminating Material

PCIT Vs Param Dairy Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

Regular Books Of Accounts Maintained By Assessee Can Not Be Termed As Incriminating Material To Frame Assessment Under Section 153A , All Addition On Basis Of Such Material Is Therefore Invalid...

Read More

Detention Order under COFEPOSA ACT cannot be quashed merely for delay in Execution

Harmeet Singh Vs Union of India (High Court of Delhi)

Harmeet Singh Vs Union of India (High Court of Delhi) Detention order under COFEPOSA ACT cannot be quashed merely for delay in Execution It cannot be concluded that the livelink between the prejudicial activity in which the petitioner was found involved on 1-2.02.2019 and the purpose and object of detention, when the detention order was [...

Read More

HC Grant stay to ‘Tata Starbucks’ subject to payment of principal profiteered amount

Tata Starbucks Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)

Tata Starbucks Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Subject to the petitioner depositing the entire principal profiteered amount i.e. Rs. 1,04,70,664/- as levied excluding the GST amount already deposited, within four months, in equal monthly instalments, there shall be a stay, as far as the direction for payment is concer...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,216)
Company Law (6,929)
Custom Duty (8,309)
DGFT (4,461)
Excise Duty (4,440)
Fema / RBI (4,560)
Finance (4,794)
Income Tax (36,010)
SEBI (3,836)
Service Tax (3,673)

Search Posts by Date

March 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031