Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court decision regarding applicability of service tax on rent

April 18, 2009 5274 Views 4 comments Print

The Delhi High Court held that the renting of immovable property is not a service, and accordingly, the levy of service tax on the activity of renting is “ultra vires.” The decision may have significant accounting implications on the entities. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court

Provision for a liability allowable if it can be estimated & if there is reasonable certainty

March 22, 2009 408 Views 0 comment Print

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the reasoning of both the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. In our view, the issue raised by the Revenue before us that the liability under the “long service award” scheme of the assessee is contingent as the payment under the same scheme is dependent on the discretion of the management

The levy under section 234B is compensatory in nature and is not in the nature of penalty: HC Delhi

March 22, 2009 4316 Views 0 comment Print

RELEVENT PARAGRAPH 11. We have examined the decisions cited by the counsel on both sides and after considering the submissions made by them, we agree with the learned counsel for the Revenue that the levy under Section 234B of the said Act is compensatory in nature and is not in the nature of penalty. We […]

Properties acquired from common properties of common ancestor cannot be adjudicated by Company Court: Civil Suit not barred u/s. 397 to 407 of the Companies Act, 1956

February 25, 2009 907 Views 0 comment Print

Originally the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants, namely, B had started a proprietary concern. His son constituted six private limited companies and registered them under the Companies Act, 1956, and all the shareholders of these companies being the heirs of the late B, the companies were family concerns. The Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 started defendants Nos. 7 to 12 companies out of the funds of the original concern.

Reopening notice even if served after limitation period is valid: HC DELHI

February 19, 2009 1565 Views 0 comment Print

(i) S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be “issued” but not “served” within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment;

Allowability of interest paid in respect of loans obtained from Public Financial Institutions

February 4, 2009 978 Views 0 comment Print

17.1 According to us, as correctly held by the Tribunal, the assessee’s claim for deduction had to be allowed, in one lump sum, keeping in view the provisions of Section 43B(d) which provides that any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any financial institution shall be allowed to the assessee in the year in which the same is paid irrespective of the provisions in which the liability to pay

know-how fee related to grant of technical assistance and continuous know-how, including training of personnel,is revenue in nature

December 20, 2008 696 Views 0 comment Print

The third installment of know-how fee which related to grant of technical assistance and continuous know-how, in Italy, including training of personnel, in Italy is revenue in nature, any interest paid in relation to delayed payments will also, have to be treated, as one, which is, on revenue account.

Section 80IA(7)- Filing of audit report along with return not mandatory

December 2, 2008 3564 Views 0 comment Print

Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd 317 ITR 249 (Del)- Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion that the requirement of filing of audit report along with the return was not mandatory but directory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the framing of the assessment, the requirement of section 80IA(7) would be met.

Subodh Kumar Bhargava Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)

November 28, 2008 1076 Views 0 comment Print

The tribunal was not right in law in its interpretation of the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) and was wrong in holding that the penalty order passed on 17.02.2004 under Section 271B was within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.

Revenue, having accepted the order of the Tribunal in the first round, cannot raise those objections in the second round

November 28, 2008 451 Views 0 comment Print

Although, no claim under Section 10A had been made before the Assessing Officer, the respondent/assessee had made such a claim before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee was fully justified in raising the claim under Section 10A of the said Act

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930