Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that when the original proceeding has been completed under Section 143(1), there is no need for fresh tangible material for reopening the assessment and the doctrine of change of opinion does not arise since under Section 143(1) […]
PVR Ltd Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) HC held that ITAT erred in law in holding that the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to employees of the appellant company under ESOP and ESPS and the prevailing market price of the stock on the date of grant of such options was […]
Held that record doesn’t disclose any independent material, accordingly charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be confirmed merely on the basis of the retracted confessional statement.
Eversub India Private limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Summons under circulars dated 23.12.2019, 26.02.2007 and 20.01.2015, and the guidelines incorporated in the circular dated 05.11.2019 have to be issued as a last resort; the contention being that if information can be obtained from officers working for an entity, then the top […]
Logix Infratech Private Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) along with notice dated 28th July, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14 and the proceedings initiated pursuant […]
In the present case, the Agreement has indeed been signed by the respondent, who himself resists the appointment of an arbitrator thereunder.
HC set aside order to attach the bank account of assessee for more than one year and held that as per section 83 of CGST Act the prescribed time limit for provisional attachment is one year
Held that refund under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is available on legal services offered by the assessee to the recipient of service located outside the taxable territory.
High Court held that taxpayers cannot be asked to wait endlessly for the respondents to contest the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
HC sets aside order cancelling GST registration, and held that SC suo moto extension of limitation period is applicable for filing appeal against cancellation
