Jagriti Plastics Limited vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (Delhi HIgh Court),- Hon’ble Court noted that the price of the goods sold by the appellant included the component of customs duty paid at the time of their import and such component is reduced to the extent of usage of DEPB scrips by the company.
Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Singh Kadan that to determine whether the agricultural land is situated within 8 km of the municipal limits so as to constitute a capital asset, the distance has to be measured in terms of the approach road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow’s flight.
In the case of Flevel International V/S Commissioner Of Central Excise, it was held by Delhi High Court that the denial of an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness whose statements have been relied upon in the adjudication order would vitiate the order of adjudication. In the present case
The Delhi High Court Has Held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax that both the assessee as well as the department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal.
In a Historic/Landmark Judgment Delhi High Court in the case Avinash Gupta Vs. UOI has although not allowed extension of due date for filing ITR for AY 2015-16 but instructed the Govt. to ensure availability of forms for tax audit from the beginning of next assessment year.
In the case of CIT vs Kapil Nagpal, it was held by the Delhi High Court that purchase of an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes did not violate 54F conditions. Further the exclusive ownership of the residential house on the date of transfer is required to prove violation of Section 54F.
New Delhi court held in PR. CIT Vs Control and Switch gear Contractors Ltd that if the assessee had disclosed the income in its return of income though wrongly disclosed it did not mean that the assessee had tried to hide its income so that wrongly disclosed income could not be considered as an undisclosed income and penalty u/s 271(1)( C) could not be levied.
The High Court of New Delhi has held in case of CIT-1 Vs Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd that second proviso to sec 40(a)(ia) will have retrospective effect from 01-04-2005 which means that if the assessee had forgot to deduct the TDS on payment
The assessee filed its return of income on 02.12.2013, which was processed u/s 143(1) at the returned income and accordingly refund order of Rs.20,16,957/- was issued. Subsequently A.O. based on reporting made by statutory auditor in the audit report in the form of 3CD u/s 44AB
CIT vs Noida Medicare Centre Ltd (Delhi High Court) Even though the sales tax was paid in a subsequent year, the liability to pay sales tax arose in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in which the machinery was purchased.
