Delhi High Court in its judgment pronounced today has held that judgment in Brand Equity will continue to apply in-spite of retrospective amendment to Section 140 by The Finance (Amendment) Act, 2020.
The issue under consideration is relating to the writ petition filed for seeking refund of pre-deposit of Service Tax alongwith interest. Question is whether petitioner will get the refund or not?
The Court examined the contentions of the Petitioner that the Respondent had Bank Accounts and other moveable properties within the territorial jurisdiction of New Delhi along with the Administrative Office. Further, the Respondent submitted that the immovable property was on lease and not owned by the Respondent. However, the Court noted that the Respondent did not deny existence of moveable properties like Bank Accounts within the jurisdiction of the Court.
Once the accused was granted pardon by the Court and was made approver, the status of the accused changed from accused to witness/approver. However, if the approver, failed to comply with the conditions of order granting him pardon, he made him liable to be tried as accused subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 308 Cr PC.
Whether the exchange fluctuation loss on Business Advance on Balance Sheet considered as business loss by Appellant are allowable under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961?
Since none of the comparables had been excluded on the ground of high turnover alone, the test of functional similarity applied by the Tribunal was in consonance with the legal position and moreover, assessee could not be denied a chance to challenge the inclusion of a comparable merely for the reason that the selected comparable cleared the filters.
Tribunal’s power and jurisdiction of hearing an appeal against an order of provisional release was coequal with the power exercised by the adjudicating authority. Tribunal had the power to direct provisional release of gold jewellery, seized as well as to fix the terms.
PCIT Vs Junjab National Bank (Delhi High Court) Merely because additions made by the Assessing Officer have been partially upheld by the CIT (A), would not confer the ground to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of imposition of penalty, unless it is found that there is concealment of material facts, or furnishing […]
Rule 27 embodies a fundamental principal that a Respondent who may not have been aggrieved by the final order of the Lower Authority or the Court, and therefore, has not filed an appeal against the same, is entitled to defend such an order before the Appellate forum on all grounds, including the ground which has been held against him by the Lower Authority, though the final order is in its favour.
Temporary non-use of premises due to the lockdown which was announced due to the COVID-19 outbreak cannot be construed as rendering the lease void under Section 108(B)(e) of the TPA. The tenant cannot also avoid payment of rent in view of Section 108(B)(l).
