Dalmia Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- It is well settled that audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of this court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC), has held as under (at page 393) :’In the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment.
CIT Vs Splender Construction (Delhi High Court)- When the land which was held as stock in trade for several years is converted into investment just before the sale, it can be said that the assessee did so to pay lesser taxes, and it amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars, warring levy of penalty . If Merits Successively Rejected, Issue “Not Debatable.
In the dictionary clause in Section 65(90A), while defining renting of immovable property, it has been stated that it includes renting, letting, leasing, licencing or other similar arrangements for immovable property for use in the course or furtherance of business or commerce.
ICAI & ANR. Vs DGIT (EXEMPTIONS) (Delhi High Court)- Even if the profits earned are used for charitable purposes, but fee, cess or consideration is charged by a person for carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering of any service in addition to any trade, commerce or business, an institution will not be regarded as established for charitable purpose/activity (it would be covered under the proviso and the bar/prohibition will apply)
Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Service Tax on renting of immovable property with retrospective effect While upholding the levy of Service Tax on Renting, their Lordship has left open the question of imposition of penalty for period prior to 2010 to be examined by the Govt. in view of the fact […]
In a case of bounced cheque, the Delhi high court has ruled that the magistrate in the place where the cheque was drawn and where the drawee bank is situated has jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. The power under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not with the magistrate where the cheque was presented or from where the notice was issued to the offending party. Shree Raj issued some 45 cheques drawn on State Bank of India in Mumbai to Destination of the World in New Delhi. When the payee company presented them to ICICI Bank in Delhi, they were dishonoured by bank for want of funds.
PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Section 22 of the Act makes “income from house property” as chargeable to income tax. After excluding such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which are chargeable to income tax.
CIT Vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- During the Assessment Year 2000-01, in which the issue arises, the assessee had returned Rs. 144 Crores receivable from Non-Performing Assets in accordance with the guidelines by reversing its income accounted for and offered for tax in earlier years.
Insilco Limited Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Honourable Tribunal has rightly given the aforesaid directions, which are nothing but pointing out what the AO was required to do under the law.
CIT Vs Ms Mayawati (Delhi High Court)- All the donors appeared before the Department, submitted material including affidavits on oath, confirms the gifts made, established their old relations with the assessee and proved their capacity to make the gifts. We have noted that in earlier years also they had made gifts to the assessee and her family members, which were accepted by the Revenue.
