CIT Vs Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Conditions prescribed in Rule 46A must be shown to exist before additional evidence is admitted and every procedural requirement mentioned in the Rule has to be strictly complied with so that the Rule is meaningfully exercised and not exercised in a routine or cursory manner. […]
Alapan Bandyopadhyay Vs Union Of India And Anr (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously argued that under Rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, it is the statutory right and option of the Petitioner, being a retired person, to file an O.A. before the Kolkata Bench, as he was […]
CIT (International Taxation) Vs Gracemac Corporation (Delhi High Court) This Court is in agreement with the opinion of the Tribunal that Section 271(1)(c) penalty can only be levied in such cases where concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been set aside in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, there […]
Abhishek Banerjee Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court) With regard to the allegation of mala fide it would be apposite to note that the same is to be established to a specific assertion on the basis of proven facts and not on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The burden of establishing mala fide […]
Rita Bhutani Vs State of NCT of Delhi Through Sho & Anr. (Delhi High Court) This petition has been filed under Section 397 (1) CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC challenging Order dated 11.03.2019, wherein Respondent No.2 was granted bail by the learned ACMM (South), Saket Courts as well as Order dated 06.01.2021 passed by […]
High Court held that use of the expression ‘may’ in Section 144B(7)(viii) is not decisive. Where a discretion is conferred upon a quasi judicial authority whose decision has civil consequences, the word ‘may’ which denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently, the requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory.
The Arbitration agreement with signatures of only one party to the agreement are not ‘instruments’ to attract the provisions of Stamp Act of that place where it is signed by one party.
Jayanti Dalmia Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) In this case ITAT has upheld the order of CIT with respect to non-compliance of notice issued under Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Appellant-assessee and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the […]
Omkar Nath Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi (Delhi High Court) Concededly, the AO passed the impugned assessment order, as indicated above, on 07.06.2021, without granting an opportunity to the petitioner of a personal hearing in the matter. This being the position, clearly, the provisions of Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Act would apply in this […]
PCIT Vs Vikas Telecom Ltd (Delhi High Court) In this case the learned Assessing Officer while farming the assessment order has not referred to any seized documents belonging to the assessee found during the course of search proceedings. In the remand proceedings the learned Assessing Officer has also submitted that no any incriminating materials have […]
