PCIT Vs Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) The law requires determination of fair market values as per prescribed methodology. The Appellant-Revenue had the option to conduct its own valuation and determine FMV on the basis of either the DCF or NAV Method. The Respondent-Assessee being a start-up company adopted DCF method to value […]
Karan Singh Vs Designated Committee Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme and Another (Delhi High Court ) Since quantification has co-relation and is interlinked with tax relief under the scheme, and the Petitioner has not made a voluntary disclosure, but has rather approached for settlement in respect of case under investigation, we find merit in […]
Pradeep Kumar Jindal Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) In the present case, admittedly, there is no adjudication by the ITAT on merits. In our opinion, the order dated 10th December, 2015 of the ITAT, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner for non-prosecution and not on merits, as the ITAT was required to do notwithstanding the […]
Kunwar Tuli Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) We find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the part of the commission expenses paid on the ground that the assessee failed to produce the requisite evidences, including contract agreement between the parties and the assessee sought to justify the commission expenses only in view of the tax […]
Having regard to the fact that since November, 2020, the Advance Ruling Authority has not been conducting the hearings, we make a request to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor to take up the matter on priority basis and process the nomination received from the CBIC at the earliest.
Harmeet Singh Vs Union of India (High Court of Delhi) Detention order under COFEPOSA ACT cannot be quashed merely for delay in Execution It cannot be concluded that the livelink between the prejudicial activity in which the petitioner was found involved on 1-2.02.2019 and the purpose and object of detention, when the detention order was […]
K. R. Ananad Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax (Delhi High Court) Petitioner submits that in this case order was passed by ignoring the mandate of Section 34 of the DVAT Act which prescribes limitation for completion of assessment and provides period of four years. In terms of the Section 34, the assessment […]
The petition impugns the Certificate dated 9th January, 2021 issued by the respondent in Form-3, under Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, vide Acknowledgment No.158235220090121, to the extent the same treats the case of the petitioner as a search case.
Regular Books Of Accounts Maintained By Assessee Can Not Be Termed As Incriminating Material To Frame Assessment Under Section 153A , All Addition On Basis Of Such Material Is Therefore Invalid
Section 153A Invalid Where Statement Belonging And Pertaining To Person Other Than Searched Person Used To Assume Jurisdiction and Only Section 153C Can Be Invoked And Without Cross Examination Of Witness There Can Be No Valid Proceedings Under Law.
