KRBL Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Court is of the view that the Respondents-Revenue have had sufficient time to file an appeal against the order of the ITAT. In any event, in accordance with the mandate of law, the appeal effect order has to be passed within three months of passing the appeal order. FULL […]
Rise Projects Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner states that impugned order dated 15th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed without considering the detailed reply filed by the petitioner. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondents-revenue, accepts notice. He, on instructions, states that as the petitioner’s contentions have […]
Dabur India Limited Vs CIT (TDS) (Delhi High Court) 20% of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending first appeal in all cases Writ petition were filed challenging the order dismissing the Petitioner’s application for stay of demand and directing the Petitioner to pay 20% of the […]
Delhi High Court held that Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme requires that the appeal should be pending and hence there is no need to introduce the quantification that the appeal should be valid or competent.
Delhi High Court held that donations to institutions other than the one enlisted in Schedule (VII) of the Companies Act, 2013 is not deductible as Corporate Social Responsibility.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated by mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer regarding the question of the fair market value or whether the amount paid by the assessee to his sisters was deductible from the total consideration.
Mahalaxmi Dye India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) A perusal of the paper book reveals that during the investigation it has been found that M/s Seema Enterprises is not involved in any real business and hence the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it made payments in the course of […]
Delhi High Court held that attachment under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) does not result in the effacement of rights in property, it would clearly stand and survive outside the scope of a moratorium that comes into effect in terms of section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2006.
Delhi High Court held that the consideration for the purchase of marketing and business rights for a period of twenty years is capital in nature and constitutes an intangible asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act and therefore eligible to claim depreciation.
Delhi High Court held that AO is not empowered to frame block assessment merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without reference to any other material discovered during the search and seizure operations.
