Shah-E-Naaz Judge Vs. Addl. DIT (Inv) (Delhi High Court) Authority and power to conduct search and seizure operations is strident and caustic power authorized by law to be taken recourse to when the conditions mentioned under different clauses of Section 132 (1) of the Act are satisfied. Constitutional validity of the said provision has been […]
Commissioner of Value Added Tax Vs Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The placement of an order by the agent for procurement of the lifts, in this case, was merely an offer. It is only upon its acceptance and further steps taken by the supplier that an offer crystallizes into a binding promise […]
Where assessee, in order to get a bank loan, submitted a bogus audit report from CA and showed fake turnover in his return of income, imposition of penalty under section 271B for non-compliance of section 44AB was justified.
Pr. CIT Vs Narang Construction & Finance (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The materials on record showed not mere superficial details like PAN, ROC, etc., but further facts relating to the bank accounts of the share applicants were also there. The share applicants were entering into proper commercial transactions and were not per se forged, bogus or […]
Pr. CIT Vs Moonstar Securities Trading & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) In this case for both years, the assessee had offered amounts as disallowance claiming them to be expenditure for tax exempt income. The assessing officer merely proceeded to reject such amount as expenditure and straightaway applied rule 8D without adducing any […]
National Company Law Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to entertain or dispose of any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under the Code
The relevant clauses of AS-7, applicable Guidance Notes, the fact that the accounts were duly audited and the disclosures made in the audit notes, the loss income as declared, small taxable income as assessed even after the additions were made and that the expenses as claimed were otherwise eligible and allowed in the next assessment year, we would accept that the assessee had shown that they had acted bona fidely. Thus, the assessee should not have been burdened with penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
No disallowance of expenditure in terms of section 14A read with rule 8D can be made in case where no exempt income is earned in the relevant assessment year.
Assessee-GE group had carried out business through PE in India and GE India constituted DAPE in India for all overseas GE Group entities as LO were discharging vital responsibilities relating to finalization of commercial terms and a prominent involvement in the contract finalization process.
Mr. Jairam Ramesh Vs Union of India and Ors (Delhi High Court) There is no dispute that the petitioner herein is a Member of Rajya Sabha. The plea of Mr. Chidambram that the petitioner was not aware that such amendments have been carried out as Money Bills, is no reason to challenge the amendments, at […]
