High Court of Delhi held Section 9(2)(g) of Delhi VAT Act to the extent it disallows Input tax credit to purchaser due to default of selling dealer in depositing tax, as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India.
Admittedly,Company is not carrying out any businesss and its bank account has not been operated for over three years, petitioner ought to be provided benefit of CODS – 2018.
When the very basis of the reopening of the assessment having been eroded, notice under section 148 quashed in the case of Oracle
Teleworld Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes (Delhi High Court) Counsel for the respondents have submitted that illegality of seizure or survey or investigation would not affect admissibility and relevancy of the evidence collected. The said evidence as per the respondent is admissible and decisions in M. Malkani versus State of Maharashtra, […]
It is obvious that the appeals should be listed on the judicial side, even if, there is an issue or debate with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Such matters cannot be decided on the Administrative side, by the Registry of the CESTAT, even when it is of the opinion that the appellants have not approached the right or correct Bench of the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction.
Whether the ITAT has committed an error of law in upholding the dis allowance of Rs. 3,08,79,171 in respect of Sales Tax Recoverable account, under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act?
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed that the Condonation of Delay Scheme on its official website with a view to ensure that wide publicity is given to the scheme.
Sunbeam Auto Private Limited Vs Pr. CIT (Delhi High Court) 1. These four writ petitions are by Sunbeam Auto Private Limited seeking inter alia the quashing of an order dated 30th March 2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 (Pr CIT) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), dismissing the […]
Quashing the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Excise Commissioner, the Delhi High Court held that the mere fact that the vehicle was used to transport liquor would not be sufficient for confiscating the same if the owner of the vehicle is able to establish that he/ she was not involved in the offence.
This Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s impugned order is unexceptionable because it is premised upon the circumstance that in the absence of any fresh tangible material, it was not open, on mere re-appreciation of the existing circumstances, to reopen the concluded scrutiny assessment. The ITAT’s reasoning cannot, therefore, be faulted.
