Delhi High Court held that once the settlement commission concludes that there has been no true and fair disclosure of facts, the settlement commission cannot proceed to adjudicate the liability.
Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides an able machinery for assessment/reassessment of tax, the Assessee is not permitted to abandon with the machinery and invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court held that rejection of basis adopted by the assessee of the disallowance offered under section 14A after due application of mind and considering the reply furnished by the assessee is acceptable
Delhi High Court held that notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act in the name of struck off company is not void as per section 250 of Companies Act of 2013 even where a Company is dissolved in consequence to it being struck off under Section 248, it shall be deemed to continue to be in existence for the purpose of discharging its liabilities.
Rajasthan Global Securities Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 17th April, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), notice dated 28th May, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act as well as the order dated 27th […]
Delhi High Court held that assessee is free to settle any appeal under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 and is not required to settle all the pending appeals filed by the respondent-revenue for an assessment year.
Where appellant-Revenue did not reveal that the statements recorded under Section 132(4) disclose some incriminating material on the basis of which orders under Section 153A had been passed then, no assessment under Section 153A should be made.
Delhi High Court held that as the exercise of jurisdiction of Delhi High Court in case where the jurisdictional assessing officer is located outside NCT of Delhi in earlier judicial ruling is doubted. The matter is referred to larger bench of Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court held that penalty order passed beyond the time period prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act i.e. after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated is liable to be set aside.
PCIT Vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) In view of the judgments of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Aimil Limited, (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) the issue is covered against the Revenue and, therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this […]
