Delhi High Court held that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence. Further, the Applicant is also not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Accordingly, bail granted.
Delhi High Court held that loss on account of the Forward Contracts cannot be considered as speculative loss and hence loss on Forward Contracts is allowable as a deduction from the income chargeable to tax even if the Forward Contracts have not closed.
CIT International Taxation Vs Bellsea Ltd. (Delhi High Court) HC held that duration of a permanent establishment would commence with the performance of business activities in connection with the building site or assembly project. A building site or an assembly project can only be construed at fixed place of business only when an enterprise commences its […]
Jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued against the dead person and the assessment order has also been passed against the dead person on his PAN without bringing on record all his legal representatives, therefore, the said assessment order and the subsequent notices are null and void and are liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that the issue relating to passing on the liability or reimbursement thereof does not relate to the taxing power of the state or any action taken or an order made in exercise thereof. The contention that the dispute raised is non-arbitrable on the aforesaid ground is thus negative.
Delhi High Court held that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner culpable under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as property was obtained as the result of the criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
ITAT has allowed the appeals of the Assessees following the judgement of this Court in Director of Income Tax v. Sheraton International Inc (2009) 178 taxman 84 (Del). He, however, states that the said decision of this Court has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal has been preferred against the same, which is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court being CA No. 3094/2010.
In the instant case, officer deemed it necessary to carry out physical verification of the petitioner’s place of business before proceeding to pass the impugned order, which resulted in the cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration. Concededly, no notice was issued to the petitioner requiring, as mandated by Rule 25, his presence at the time of verification.
Vidisha Singhal Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) AO admits that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is riddled with mistakes. He further admits that in the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the details of the transactions allegedly carried out by the petitioner were not correct. He states that […]
Mittal International Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’) and notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 26th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Learned counsel for the […]
