Parsvnath Developers Ltd Vs Future Retail Limited (Delhi High Court) Arbitration Agreement : Sufficiency of stamp duty on agreement & nature of contract cannot be adjudicated by Court U/s 11 Of A&C Act. The dispute as to whether the contract was sufficiently stamped or not, and the averments made by the petitioner with respect to the […]
The allegation against applicant is that he and a co-accused have set up a number of fictitious companies, which are being used for the purposes of defrauding the government. It is contented that the accused persons have opened banks accounts in fictitious names and provided their telephone numbers and email addresses in this respect.
PCIT Vs BMO Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) This Court in AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT, (2012) 341 ITR 0563 as well as in CIT v. Career Launcher India Ltd., (2013) 358 ITR 0179 (Delhi) has upheld grant of bonus by companies to its directors. Consequently, this Court is of the view that […]
PCIT Vs Consortium Nussli Comfort Net (Delhi High Court) Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (supra) has clearly stated that the scope of Section 292BB is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid. However, the section does not save complete absence of notice. For section […]
Gulmuhar Silk Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Though it is the petitioner’s case that the impugned order is erroneous on facts, yet this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would have ample opportunity during the course of proceedings before different statutory forums to show that the finding of fact arrived at […]
CIT (Exemptions) Vs Hamdrd National Foundation (India) (Delhi High Court) 1. Present batch of appeals has been filed raising a common question of law, namely, as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the […]
Vodafone Luxembourg 5 S A R L Vs Income Tax Department (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for Revenue emphasises that the petitioner’s case has been selected for reassessment only on the ground that the respondents has doubted as to whether interest was received by the petitioner-assessee on rupee denominated bonds issued by an Indian company […]
SRC Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Facts- The appellant is a private limited company. Sh. Arvind Chadha and Sh. Anoop Chadha are two share-holders and directors holding 50% equity shares each since inception of the company. In the Assessment year 2011-2012, the company has paid bonus of Rs.1 crore each to both […]
Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘reason to believe’ means that there is some prima facie material on the basis of which the Department can reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
PCIT Vs Consortium Nussli Comfort Net (Delhi High Court) This Court is in agreement with the Tribunal that Section 292BB does not give the power to condone the failure or delay in issuing the statutory notice required to be issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. Section 292BB deals with failure of service of notice […]
