The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 21stDecember, 2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of I ncome Tax (PCIT) rejecting the Petitioners application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on the ground of limitation.
While hearing the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Prasidh Leasing Limited, the Delhi High Court ruled that Provisions of Deemed Dividend applicable when Assessee diverted Advance amount received for procuring import licenses for purchase of shares under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Reopening of assessment of A.Y. 2005-06 after expiry of four years without obtaining approval of an officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner was bad in law and even if such approval had been granted, by the officer superior i.e., the DIT, it would not cure the defect.
A division bench of the Delhi HC comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Chander Shekhar denied the dis allowance made in case of old creditors under section 40(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The question raised in the present petition concerns Rule 96A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Circular No. 4/4/2017- GST issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (GST Policy Wing), in terms of which any person exporting goods or services without payment of integrated tax is required to furnish a bond or a letter of undertaking (‘LUT’) in Form GST RFD-11.
Petitioner here will continue to pay the taxes as and when they fall due after availing and utilizing the credit for the cess already paid. This will, however, be subject to the final orders passed by this Court.
In a interim order Delhi High Court has held in the case of Milind Aggarwal & Ors Vs. The Institute Of Chartered Accountants Of India that ICAI shall produce the relevant official records pertaining to the receipt and compilation of the documents, the moderation procedure adopted leading to the final declaration of results which would […]
In the case of M/s Abhipra Capital Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), the Delhi High Court held that amount paid to National Stock Exchange (NSE) as non-adjustable deposit for acquisition of membership cannot be treated as revenue expenditure and the same would be termed as capital expenditure.
Dissemination of Yoga or vedic philosophy or the practice of yoga or education with respect to yoga was well within the larger term ‘medical relief’ as covered within section 2(15).
Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) was right in exercising discretion and in refusing to admit the appeal preferred by the appellant in exercise of discretion vested under proviso (iii) to subsection (1) of Section 129A of Customs Act, 1952 (Act, for short)?
