Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Delhi High Court

Reopening notice even if served after limitation period is valid: HC DELHI

February 19, 2009 1511 Views 0 comment Print

(i) S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be “issued” but not “served” within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment;

Allowability of interest paid in respect of loans obtained from Public Financial Institutions

February 4, 2009 918 Views 0 comment Print

17.1 According to us, as correctly held by the Tribunal, the assessee’s claim for deduction had to be allowed, in one lump sum, keeping in view the provisions of Section 43B(d) which provides that any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any financial institution shall be allowed to the assessee in the year in which the same is paid irrespective of the provisions in which the liability to pay

know-how fee related to grant of technical assistance and continuous know-how, including training of personnel,is revenue in nature

December 20, 2008 669 Views 0 comment Print

The third installment of know-how fee which related to grant of technical assistance and continuous know-how, in Italy, including training of personnel, in Italy is revenue in nature, any interest paid in relation to delayed payments will also, have to be treated, as one, which is, on revenue account.

Section 80IA(7)- Filing of audit report along with return not mandatory

December 2, 2008 3309 Views 0 comment Print

Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd 317 ITR 249 (Del)- Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.

Subodh Kumar Bhargava Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)

November 28, 2008 1007 Views 0 comment Print

The tribunal was not right in law in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and was wrong in holding that the penalty order passed on 17.02.2004 under Section 271B was within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.

Revenue, having accepted the order of the Tribunal in the first round, cannot raise those objections in the second round

November 28, 2008 430 Views 0 comment Print

Although, no claim under Section 10A had been made before the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee had made such a claim before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee was fully justified in raising the claim under Section 10A of the said Act

Interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services

November 20, 2008 2260 Views 0 comment Print

The payment for use of services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source.

DIT, New Delhi Vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Delhi High Court)

November 15, 2008 1483 Views 0 comment Print

Income tax – DTAA – Assessee is incorporated in Netherlands – engaged in airlines business of carrying passengers as well as cargo – gets licence from Airport Authority of India for cargo space – enters into a contract with a company to take care of cargo-booking and handling service on commission basis – While making payments to the outsourced company the assessee adjusts the rent payable to AAI – AO treats the rent deducted from the payments made to the outsourced company as income taxable to tax in India – Tribunal finds it inextricably linked to the cargo handling business for which licence was issued and such rent adjustment cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources – Tribunal has correctly understood the law – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.

Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del)

November 3, 2008 6227 Views 0 comment Print

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.-This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 29-3-2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-18, New Delhi under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘said Act’)

Commissioner of Income Tax versus Tulip Finance Ltd (Delhi High Court)

October 17, 2008 426 Views 0 comment Print

The deletion of the addition of Rs. 33 lacs, which had been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained share capital under Section 68 of the said Act. The second issue pertains to the deletion made by the Tribunal of the addition of Rs. 35,06,292/- by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained security deposits under Section 68 of the said Act.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031