It is well settled law that remand is not a power to be exercised in a routine manner and should be used sparingly, as an exception only when the facts warranted such course of action.
Punit Garg & Anr Vs Union Bank Of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) 1. Issue notice. Mr. O. P. Gaggar, Advocate accepts notice for R-1 and Mr. Shantanu Tyagi, Advocate accepts notice for R-4 and R-5. On steps being taken, notice be issued to the respondent No.3/RBI through all permissible modes including Dasti Service. […]
PCIT Vs Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) It is now settled law that failure to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144C of the Act would vitiate the entire proceedings and the same cannot be treated as an irregularity/ curable defect. In ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Companies vs. […]
ITAT has erroneously concluded that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 254(2) of the Act inasmuch as the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous application within six months of actual receipt of the order.
Delhi High Court has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the ground i.e. the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable.
Addition made by AO against Educational Trust on account ofdonations were found to be bogus was justified as assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof cast upon it and no attempt was made to produce credible material to corroborate the transactions or to explain the contradictory evidence that it was confronted with.
Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT IGNORE THE MANDATE OF RULE 28AA AND PROCEED ON ANY OTHER BASIS AS THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND STANDARDS THEY THEMSELVES HAD SET ON PAIN OF THEIR ACTION BEING INVALIDATED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS QUASHED ON […]
Sh Raghav Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax And GST Delhi North (Delhi High Court) 2. The applicant was arrested by an Arrest Memo dated 18.11.2020, issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), Commissioner Central Tax, GST Delhi 3. Mr Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has referred to the Arrest Memo, which indicates that […]
SRF Limited Vs Commissioner of VAT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner approached DVAT Department, Delhi vide letter dated 22-04-2018 to seek permission to amend the revised return so as to enable it to download Forms F for the Quarter ending 31-03-2016. He points out that October, 2019 was written by the petitioner, the impugned order was […]
Where assessee was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded therefore, assessee’s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts could not be ruled out. Indeed, the Investigating Officer had interrogated the assessee twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court found itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody was required. Accordingly, the assessee’s bail application was dismissed on account of involvement of huge money laundering .
