RMSI Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (Delhi High Court) Since in the present case, the impugned order has been passing without issuing a show cause notice / a draft assessment order which has been mandated under Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act, the impugned assessment order dated 8th September, 2021 issued under Section 143(3) read […]
ITAT has erred in holding that the entire payments received by the Assessee from its Indian Customers on account of Centralized Services viz. sales and marketing, loyalty programs, reservation service, technological service, operational services and training programs/human resources do not constitute ‘Fee for Technical Services’ as defined under Section 9(l)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) or ‘Fee for included services’ as defined under Articles 12(4) (a) of the Indo-US DTAA.
HC held that Preventive Detention Under Section 3 of Cofeposa Act Is Not Sustainable If Legible And Translated Copies of Ruds Not Been Supplied to Detenue
HC held that, payment of tax made during the conduct of search cannot be considered as voluntary payment of tax. Further directed the Revenue Department to refund the amount deposited by the assessee along with the interest.
Delhi High Court held that once it is clear that C form were issued by the registered dealer holding valid registration certificate in respect of goods sold by selling dealer. Benefit of the same cannot be denied to selling dealer.
Delhi High Court held that as per Article 7(1) of DTAA attribution of profits to Permanent Establishment arises only if foreign enterprise is making a profit. The same is not applicable if foreign enterprise is making a loss.
Delhi High Court held that circular/ instruction no. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 states that prosecution normally be not initiated against a person who has attained the age of 70 years at the time of commission of offence. However, petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of Circular/ Instruction No. 5051 dated 07.02.1991 to find an escape route for the wrong committed by him.
Delhi High Court held that in view of provisions of section 469 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, complaint filed after expiry of six months is barred by limitation.
Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Rani Girdhar v. ITO held that Assessing officer cannot add primary allegation in Notice by issuing Supplementary Notice.
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) The HC directed the Revenue Department to issue the rectified C-Forms, subject to the verification of entitlement on merits, without being burdened with issue concerning limitation. The petitioner is a telecom service provider. It undertook inter-state sales (C Forms). There was an error. […]
