Amended 80A (5) could not be read as a stipulation barring and restricting the assessee from revising the computation/claim for deduction made in accordance with Section 80A (5).
Addition made by AO was justified with regard to introduction of bogus share capital in the form of accommodation entries as the transactions done were clearly sham with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature.
Ms Napin Impex Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of DGST (Delhi High Court) The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer, which trades inter alia in PVC raisins and other food items such as beverages. The petitioner alleges that its premises were visited by the Revenue authorities on 29.08.2018 when the DGST officials directed […]
Rajesh Jindal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi (West) (Delhi High Court) Counsel for the respondent says that statements have been recorded inter alia of one Sh. Deepak Taneja and Sh. Ravinder Tyagi, both of whom have stated, giving specifics, that the petitioner has threatened them since they were made dummy directors by the […]
Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Appeal: AO Failed To Establish A Legal Basis For The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest Expense, When The Assessee Had Not Even Claimed It As Expenditure Or Deduction, Addition Unjustified
Lalit Agrawal Vs ICAI & ANR (Delhi High Court) Hon;ble Court is unable to accept the contention that the Board of Discipline does not have the jurisdiction to examine the alleged misconduct which includes Sexual Harrassment on the part of the petitioner. Clause (2) of Part-IV of the First Schedule to the Act is wide, […]
Merely because non-interest bearing advance was given to third parties, the same would not justify that the test of ‘commercial expediency’ was not satisfied by assessee. Hence, disallowance of proportionate interest made by AO was not justified, as the same was given for business purposes.
DLF Hotel Holding Case: Interest On Borrowed Funds Allowed As Deduction Under Section 36(1)(iii) Even If Some Of Funds Financed To Subsidiary Companies
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The issue pertains to Anti Profiteering order passed against HUL whereunder it was directed to deposit Rs.233 Crores. In the Writ Petition filed against the said order, the Delhi HC passed the following interim orders In view of the submissions and contentions raised, […]
Karan Luthra Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) The offence under Section 276 CC of IT Act deals with failure to comply with the obligation under Sections 139 (1) or 142(1) or 148 of IT Act. Disobedience of each said provision of law itself constitutes a distinct offence. The offence under Section 276 CC, prima facie, […]
