Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Delhi High Court

Reopening on Share capital issue verified during original assessment not valid

May 18, 2016 1483 Views 0 comment Print

The reasons supplied to the assessee for re­opening of the case relates mainly to Share capital, which is already been investigated by Assessing officer in detail during Original Assessment. Therefore, The present exercise of issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act would amount to nothing but a change of opinion, which is not permissible.

Agent without authority to conclude contracts cannot be termed PE

May 18, 2016 2953 Views 0 comment Print

One of the necessary conditions for holding that an agent constitutes a PE of an enterprise is that the agent must have an authority to conclude contracts or should have been found to be habitually entering into or concluding contracts on behalf of the enterprise.

Congress not eligible to claim exemption u/s 13A

May 15, 2016 2554 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi HC helkd that, All India Congress Committee (AICC) and Indian National Congres (INC) Delhi are not eligible to claim exemption u/s 13A of Income Tax Act for AY 1994-95 & 1995-96. The Court further holds that voluntary contributions received by political parties cannot be equated with corpus donation or capital receipts.

Sec. 40 (a)(i) is discriminatory & not applicable to Indo-US DTAA

May 14, 2016 6301 Views 0 comment Print

Section 40 (a) (i), in providing for disallowance of a payment made to a non-resident if TDS is not deducted, is no doubt meant to be a deterrent in order to compel the resident payer to deduct TDS while making the payment.

Reopening based on factual inadvertent error not sustainable

April 7, 2016 1201 Views 0 comment Print

Reason for reopening of the assessment was a mistaken factual premise that the Assessee had changed the system of accounting from the mercantile to the cash system. It was more than adequately explained by the Assessee that this was an inadvertent error.

Delhi HC too stays Service Tax on Senior Advocates

April 1, 2016 4279 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi High Court has directed by its order to Union of India that till the next date the operation of the execution of para 1(a) (i) (b) of Notification No.9/2016-ST, para 1(a) (iii) and (b) (iii) of Notification No.18/2016-ST and para 2 (1) (a) of Notification No.19/2016-ST be and is hereby stayed and the Respondents are directed to continue the reverse charge mechanism for payment of service tax for Senior Advocates under Notification No.30/2012-ST.

Pre amendment too S. 201(3) Proceeding Initiation restricted to 4 years

April 1, 2016 1474 Views 0 comment Print

As per amendment, the time limit for initiation of proceedings for assessee in default is four years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given. It is proposed to make these amendments effective from 1st April, 2010 i.e. there was no time limit mentioned before this amendment.

Reopening to tax royalty as PE business income is change of opinion

April 1, 2016 1000 Views 0 comment Print

It is a settled law that reopening based on change in opinion is not permitted. In the current case, revenue does not discovered another concealed permanent establishment but wanted to link the royalty received by the Petitioner by applying the principle of force of attraction to business income of PE in India.

Sec. 271(1) (c)-Penalty for false claim confirmed – Delhi HC

March 30, 2016 1684 Views 0 comment Print

Finding of the ITAT that no material was placed on record by the Assessee to demonstrate the nature of service rendered by the three companies to whom the commission was paid has been concurrently upheld by this Court.

Notice can't be issued to dissolved company under amalgamation

March 30, 2016 2716 Views 0 comment Print

Delhi High Court held that It is well settled that the in a case of amalgamation, the amalgamating company would stand dissolved from the date on which the amalgamation/transfer takes effect. In a recent decision dated 3rd August, 2015 in ITA No. 475/2011 SPICE Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031