Thus, personal jewellery which is not found to have been acquired on an overseas trip and was always a used personal effect of the passenger would not be subject to the monetary prescriptions incorporated in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2016 Rules.
Delhi High Court held that order issued u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act wrongly challenged on the assumption that it is draft assessment order u/s. 144C is untenable in law. Accordingly, cost of ₹1,00,000/- imposed on petitioner.
Delhi High Court held that Assessing Officer cannot assess other incomes where no addition is made on account of reasons for which reassessment was initiated under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue dismissed.
Delhi HC rules notices issued to amalgamating companies post-merger are void. Case highlights Section 87 and 160 of CGST Act in HCL Infosystems Ltd. vs CST.
Delhi High Court held that since court is unable to reach to conclusion that applicant is not guilty and also the threshold of section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] not crossed, the bail application is rejected.
Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision, concluding that the comparability analysis must focus on functional similarity rather than strict product comparability, and that certain disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were unjustified.
The Assessing Officer (hereafter AO) had made an addition to the income as returned by the respondent under Section 68 of the Act and disallowed the addition made under Section 14A of the Act.
Delhi High Court observed that once the DGFT had proceeded to issue the MEIS scrip to the writ petitioners, they would have been justified in assuming that the issue of classification was neither questioned nor doubted.
Delhi High Court held that as AO didn’t assume jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, recourse to section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment proceedings justified. Accordingly, appeal by revenue allowed.
The application preferred by the petitioner for recall of the said order was also rejected by the Supreme Court vide order dated 25.10.2019. It is thereafter that petitioner-assessee preferred a review petition.
