The division bench of the Delhi High Court confirmed the Income Tax exemption granted to the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) for the period in which they were banned by the government under UAP Act.
In CIT Vs. Hero Motor corp Ltd, the Delhi High Court held that the payment of export commission made by the Hero Motors to Honda Motor Co. Ltd (HMCL) was not in the nature of payment of royalty or fee for technical services attracting dis allowance under Section 40 (a) (i) of the Income Tax Act.
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that interest can be allowed on Refund of interest Waived by the Department under section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The bench was hearing a bunch of writ petitions wherein the petitioners raised a question that whether the expression ‘in any other case’ occurring in Section 244A (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act would include the amount of refund which constitutes the interest that has been waived by the Income Tax Department under Section 220 (2A) of the Act?
Penalty proceedings initiated U/s 275 on issues unrelated to assessment of income (such as for s. 269SS/ 269T & TDS defaults), time limit runs from date on which the AO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN.
Appellant/Assessee is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of clinker and cement falling under Chapter heading 25 of the CE Tariff Act, 1985. Between 16th July, 1997 and 30th September, 1999, the Appellant received ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent Service’ from various services providers.
Up to the tax year 2011 dividend has been first included in the total income and thereafter deduction has been granted. The facts mentioned above clearly establish that the Assessee Society is entitled to getting credit for the deemed dividend tax by virtue of the provisions of DTAA read with Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The plaintiffs are permitted to serve the defendant No. 9 Ashok Kumar Agarwal by text message as well as through Whatsapp as well as by email and to file affidavit of service.
In this case high court held that payment of employees contribution under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 and the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is allowable if paid before the due date of filing Income Tax Return or filing of Income Tax Return whichever is earlier even if the same is paid after the due dates as prescribed under these Welfare Acts.
The Court finds that the standard excuse that the Department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is two-fold. The first is regarding the budgetary constraints of the Departmen
This court is of the opinion that the material found was sketchy and insufficient to warrant a fresh valuation. In any case, the AO‟s order did not even go by the valuation report, but on an entirely different footing- not based on any principle at all.
