Delhi High Court held that the disallowance of expenditure is not sustainable as the evidence and material produced by the assessee establish that it had incurred the expenditure as claimed. Thus, findings of ITAT cannot be perverse.
Delhi High Court held that provision of service by associated enterprise doesn’t include the element of ‘make available’ of technology to the assessee. Thus, benefit of Article 12 of India-USA DTAA available to such payment and hence TDS not deductible on the same.
Delhi High Court held that assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act impermissible unless it is satisfied that document / seized material belonged to the assessee. Thus, appeal dismissed.
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.
