The Court is not satisfied that the retraction made by the Assessee two years after the declaration was bonafide. There was no satisfactory explanation for not including the said amount in the return of income filed by the Assessee on 26th September, 2009.
The division bench of Delhi High Court, in UOI v. Padmini Polymers Ltd & Anr, held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has no jurisdiction to file Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Settlement Commission.
Fact that the Assessee is a part of DuPont, a global conglomerate which had in 2011 $37.96 billion in net sales and $6.253 billion as operating profit , cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor in considering whether any genuine hardship was undergone by the Petitioner.
Decision of the arbitral tribunal to pierce the corporate veil is fundamentally flawed. It falls foul of the fundamental policy of Indian law that recognises that a company is an independent juristic person.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) order upholding the Appellate Commissioner’s opinion that the additions made in the course of reassessments were unsustainable, were challenged by the Revenue. The reassessment notice was issued to the assessee for AY 2002- 03 on the ground that information received from the Investigation Wing pointed to its being the beneficiary of the accommodation entries that were subjected to addition under Section 68.
The Court finds that the concurrent findings of both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the ITAT are that the consistent treatment of the said transactions in the books of accounts of the Assessee and the volume and frequency of such transactions did not justify treating the income as business income.
Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act provides for deduction, in the case of any building, machinery, plant or furniture, in respect of which depreciation is claimed and allowed under clause (i) and which is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed in the previous year (other than the previous year in which it is first brought into use), […]
Court has been shown the five undated cheques for sum of Rs.1.25 crores which were collected from the Petitioner during the visit to the premises of the Petitioner on 10th March, 2017. The Court specifically asked Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, to show any provision in Central Excise Act 1944 (CE […]
Section 142 (2A) of the Act anticipates timely submission of the report of the Special Auditor. The Auditor who is to conduct special audit in terms of Section 142 (2) of the Act is not an auditor of the choice of the Assessee. The auditor is nominated by the Revenue and his work is not […]
Recently, in Asian Polymers Vs. Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes & Anr, the Delhi High Court reiterated that re-assessment cannot be used as a tool for causing delay in processing the refund applications. While scrapping the assessment orders passed by the DVAT Department, the division bench criticised the Officials in harsh words.
