Delhi High Court held that section 195 of the Act has no application once the nature of payment is determined as salary and deduction has been made under Section 192 of the Act.
Boutique International Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Court finds that the information furnished to the Petitioner and the impugned order do not specify in which bank account or account number, the alleged amount have been received by the Petitioner. Though the impugned order states that the asset is represented by bogus accommodation entries in […]
PCIT Vs Rajdarbar Heritage Venture Ltd. (Formerly Known As Global Heritage Venture Ltd.) (Delhi High Court) High Court held that till the final award was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal determining the ownership of the fixed deposits (FDS) and interest, it could not be said that the interest income had crystallized in the respondent’s hands […]
Jain Cooperative Bank Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) As per the notice issued under Section 148A(b) the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of suspicious transactions flagged by the FIU [Financial Intelligence Unit]. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is registered as a non-scheduled Urban Cooperative bank who ‘maintained current accounts […]
It is strange that that the order dated 26th May, 2022, has not been implemented till date. The interest on the refund continues to run at the cost of the exchequer.
Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty and to detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.
PCIT Vs Gautam Bhalla (Delhi High Court) Appellant states that the ITAT has erred in holding that the addition which was not based on incriminating material found during the search, could not be made the basis for an assessment order under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without going into merits of the […]
HC observed that SARFAESI Act is a code in itself and remedy provided under Section 17 is an expeditious and effective remedy available to an aggrieved person. The SARFAESI Act under Section 17 provides for an efficacious and efficient remedy to adjudicate the grievances of a borrower and the DRT has the power to determine whether the actions of an ARC are in compliance with the SARFAESI Act.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court while providing relief to the Appellants have observed that any untoward incident i.e. injury or death caused during travelling in Trains have to be compensated by the Railways and the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing factor will not fall under the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act.
PCIT Vs Amway India Enterprises (Delhi High Court) In the present appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT erred in confirming the order of the CIT(A) and failed to appreciate the fact that the royalty payment is excessive and not at arm’s length on consideration of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP’) […]
