Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Limited Vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) Broadly, it appears that the ITAT has gone on the usage of several terms such as debt syndication, debt financing, IPO advisory, corporate restructuring, mergers, acquisitions etc, appearing in the annual reports of the comparable to hold that the Assessee and the said comparables perform similar functions.
Whether retweeting would attract the liability under Section 499 IPC, is a question which requires to be determined in the totality of the circumstances and the same will have to be determined during trial and any interference at this stage by this court is likely to prejudice the findings of the Trial Court.
Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, the learned CGSC accepts notice for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice for Respondent No.2. Reply be filed on or before 17th October, 2017 and rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next of hearing.
The Petitioner seeks the quashing of a notice dated 20th March, 2015 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (Act) by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter Assessing Officer AO) and the order dated 1st February, 2016 passed by the AO disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the said notice.
The present writ petitions have been filed by NDTV Ltd. (hereinafter, NDTV) against the notice proposing reassessment proceedings initiated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter, espondent or CIT or Revenue) under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, Act) and the order of provisional attachment of Petitioner’s assets under section 281B of the Act.
The purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, the seized documents had to be shown to belong to the other person and not merely pertaining to such other person. The change brought about in this regard in Section 153 C of the Act by way of amendment has been given prospective effect from 1st June 2015.
Where material was found in course of search at third party assessee that assessee had claimed bogus expenditure of 1 crore, towards which assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs and for balance 50 lakhs, it failed to provide any evidence, then it was made clear that onus of showing that balance expenditure was justified, lay upon assessee. Since assessee failed to discharge onus, AO was justified in bringing to tax the said expenditure.
High Court held that The failure by the AO to adhere to the mandatory requirement of Section 144C (1) of the Act and first pass a draft assessment order would result in invalidation of the final assessment order and the consequent demand notices and penalty proceedings.
service tax from 1st April 2016 itself ought to have been collected on reverse charge basis. If any client who has paid the fees of the Senior Advocate, has failed to make payment of the corresponding service tax on reverse charge basis, it would be open to the Department to proceed against such client to recover the service tax in accordance with law.
Perhaps, it is because of the said grounds having been allowed by the Courts to prevail, that perfection and excellence is lacking in the legal profession and mediocrity has set in.
