Held that there is no dispute that the work order was issued by the respondent but stamp duty on the same is not paid. Accordingly, arbitration clause would be non-existent in law and unenforceable till stamp duty is adjudicated and paid.
HC held that attempt by CIT to exclude a genuine disputant of tax liability, like petitioner, from possibility of settlement under VSV Act is extremely hyper-technical.
United Associates Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) A Writ Petition was filed in Hon’ble Delhi high Court to set aside the notice dated 28.06.2022 issued by the Income Tax Department under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order u/s 148A(d) issued by the Respondent No.1 under section 148 of the Income Tax […]
Assessee found to be a beneficiary of accommodation entries and been instrumental in manipulating prices of several penny stock scrips on stock exchange.
Held that rule 12 Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigations of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 does not expressly debar the Director Discipline from entertaining a complaint merely because it may relate to acts of misconduct committed seven years prior to the same being lodged.
Sudipta Basu Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court is of the view that Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 provides a remedy to the Assessees to seek condonation of delay, in cases where Assessee could not file their income tax returns within time due to genuine hardship. Consequently, […]
Held that as there was no material on the basis of which Sessions Court could have summoned any of the accused. The summoning order was rightly set aside.
Whether assessee can be penalized due to expired E way bill with transportation for genuine reason with no intention of tax evasion
Rithala Education Society Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) In the present case, the significance of issuance of a show cause notice at a stage prior to issuance of a re-assessment notice under Section 148 of the Act has been lost on the respondents inasmuch as the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the […]
Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that when the original proceeding has been completed under Section 143(1), there is no need for fresh tangible material for reopening the assessment and the doctrine of change of opinion does not arise since under Section 143(1) […]
