Application and affidavits filed in support thereof discloses sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Tribunal, has inappropriately rejected the Miscellaneous Application, without examining the merits of the said submissions. Paras 5 and 6 of the Impugned Order, as reproduced above, reveal that the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application merely on the ground that the Petitioner had sought frequent adjournments
PCIT Vs Yum Restaurants India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The Court sets aside the impugned order and the corresponding orders of the AO/TPO and the DRP as regards the issue of AMP expenses and remands the issue concerning the determination of the existence of an international transaction between the Assessee and its AE involving […]
The fact that a certain payment constitutes income or capital receipt in the hands of the recipient is not material in determining whether the payment is revenue or capital disbursement qua the payer. It has further been held that whether a transaction is capital expenditure would have to be determined having regard to the nature of the transaction and other relevant factors.
Shilpa Chowdhary Vs Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Delhi High Court); It is it is revealed that Mr. Vikas Chowdhary denied having any bank locker. Shilpa Chowdhary, while admitting the existence of the locker, did not give any information relating to its contents. Therefore, there was indeed material with the concerned authority to form […]
Smt. Dharna Goyal @ Dharna Garg Vs Aryan Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Perusal of the complaint shows that the allegation of issuing the cheque is against accused No.1 from the account maintained by accused No. 1 and allegations of signing are against accused No. 2, as authorized signatory of accused No.1. The allegation […]
British Airways PLC Vs ITO & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The limited grievance of the petitioner raised in this petition is that the withholding tax certificate issued to the petitioner has been made effective from the date of issue and not from the beginning of the financial year i.e. 01.04.2019. For example, it is pointed […]
Venus Recruiters Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Whether an application for avoidance of a Preferential Transaction, though filed prior to the Resolution Plan being approved, can be heard & adjudicated by the NCLT, at the instance of the RP, after the approval of the Resolution Plan? The jurisdiction of the NCLT […]
The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement Vs A. Raja & Ors (Delhi High Court) 1. The application Crl.M.A. 10885/2020 is filed by respondent No.17- M/s Conwood Construction & Developers (P) Ltd. and Crl.M.A. 12520/2020 is filed by respondent No.15- M/s Dynamix Realty. The applicants are seeking modification of the ex parte ad interim order dated […]
The present writ petitions have been filed challenging orders issued by respondent authority whereby the penalty demand of Rs.293,28,50,153 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 stayed subject to payment of 20% of the said amount.
The genesis of trial of three petitions before the trial court is the complaint bearing CC No.511538/16 (Old CC No.131/2014), under Section 276-D of the Income Tax Act dated 28th February, 2015 and the other two complaints rest on the same. Whether the petitioner is holding a foreign account or not is a matter of trial in the first complaint and the assumption that he holds an undisclosed foreign account, which forms basis of other two complaints, is also subject matter of trial.
