DRP is not empowered to set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under Section 144C(5) for further enquiry for passing the assessment order and therefore, the disallowance proposed under Section 37 (1) of the Act was without jurisdiction.
It is settled principle of law that at the stage of granting registration u/s 12AA of the Act, ld. CIT (E) is not to examine the application of income, which is to be done by the AO on year to year basis at the time of deciding the exemption u/s 11 of the Act
R Enterprises Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Section 83 of the CGST Act empowers the concerned authority to provisionally attach assets, in cases where the proceedings have been initiated under Chapter XII, XIV or XV of the CGST Act and the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of […]
Release of seized perishable goods – conclusion of adjudication proceedings expeditiously – seeking cross examination of the Panch witnesses, other witnesses whose statements are relied upon in the Show Cause Notice and the officers of the DGGI
IBBI Vs State Bank of India & Ors (Delhi High Court) In the present case, a conjoint reading of the provisions of the IBC clearly shows that the NCLT is the adjudicating authority under the IBC. Under Section 60(5) the categories of cases which can be adjudicated have been clearly enumerated. The jurisdiction to deal […]
Delhi High Court held that Explanation 2 was inserted in Section 37 via Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 and is effective from 01.04.2015 [from Assessment Year 2015-2016 onwards] Accordingly expenditure incurred towards Corporate Social Responsibility is allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court addresses compliance issues in the case of Ansal Properties & Neelam Bhutani. Key points on Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the court’s decision.
PCIT Vs Karuna Garg (Delhi High Court) PCIT states that ITAT has erred in deleting the additions on account of bogus Long-Term Capital Gain on sale of penny stock company namely M/s Goldline International Finvest Ltd. on the ground that the assessing officer has not made independent enquiry. ITAT held that In the absence of […]
Dr B L Kapur Memorial Hospital Vs CIT (TDS) (Delhi High Court) HC Court is of the view that the requirement of payment of twenty per cent of disputed tax demand is not a pre-requisite for putting in abeyance recovery of demand pending first appeal in all cases. The said pre-condition of deposit of twenty […]
Rajesh Katyal Vs Income Tax Department (Delhi High Court) Supreme Court in judgment of Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Held that offence under Section 53 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is prospective and would only apply to those transactions which were entered into after amendment came into force i.e., 01st November, 2016. Supreme has […]
