Pr. CIT Vs Vedanta Limited (Delhi High Court) It is apparent that the Assessing Officer without examining, commenting and rejecting the disallowance made by the respondent-assessee had applied Rule 8D as compulsory and universally applicable rule where the assessee has earned exempt income. However, Rule 8D cannot be invoked and applied unless the Assessing Officer […]
G. V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) The rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 119(2)(b) is only on the ground that according to the Chief Commissioner’s opinion the plea of omission by the auditor was not substantiated. This court has difficulty to understand what more plea or proof any assessee could […]
Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) Grievance of the Petitioner is that Director General of Anti Profiteering (DGAP) has by the impugned notice dated 8th/9th April, 2019 sought information on all products of the Petitioner. In this context, he has referred to the recent amendment by which Sub-Rule 5 […]
M/s. EPCOS Electronic Components S. A. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) The next issue is whether the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was prejudicial to the interest of the Assessee. It must be noted here that although the tax calculated as payable in the return filed and accepted by the Department […]
Invocation of rule 8D of Income Tax Rules without recording satisfaction as to non-correctness of assessee’s claim of suo motu disallowance under section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961, was in contravention of provisions of section 14A(2), therefore, additional disallowance was deleted.
The withholding certificate which directed TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to assessee-overseas company was unsustainable in law, inasmuch as there was arbitrariness and non-application of mind at various levels which vitiated the certificate.
Delhi High Court has observed that second proviso to Customs Section 110(2), stating that in case of provisional release, period of 6 months for SCN would not apply, is to make sure that at least seized goods are provisionally released quickly. The Court held that 2nd proviso, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, did not take away what was already available to assessee and hence the proviso was not applied retrospectively.
Fresh information in the form of investigation report clearly demonstrated that initial disclosure regarding price of shares was not true and there was whole ‘live link’ between material in the form of investigation report and formation of belief that income had escaped assessment, therefore, reassessment notice was sustained as valid.
Wholesale Trading Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs ICAI (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Since Appellant-company was carrying on the activity of filing and pursuing complaints against various Chartered Accountants as an organised activity, independent of the objects for which it was incorporated, therefore, it was held that litigants, such as assessee, who had made litigation their business/vocation […]
Wholesale Trading Services P Ltd. Vs ICAI (Delhi High Court) Before concluding, it is also relevant to note that the petitioner has been filing various petitions before this Court in respect of complaints made before ICAI, despite having no particular interest in the matter. As noticed above, the petitioner has no connection or dealing with […]
