This court is of the opinion that the material found was sketchy and insufficient to warrant a fresh valuation. In any case, the AO‟s order did not even go by the valuation report, but on an entirely different footing- not based on any principle at all.
Delhi HC has asked Delhi government to take all necessary steps to prevent outbreak of vector-borne diseases, including dengue, chikungunya and malaria, which are caused on account of mosquito bites.
In view of the settled legal position that nomination is not a Will, and in the absence of the any Will only those persons who are legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act inherit the properties.
Section 10B(1) of the Act, gives numerous benefits to the assessees and the fourth proviso does nothing but requires compliance of the time line provided in Section 139(1) of the Act for claiming the benefit of Section 10B(1).
CBDT cannot arrogate to itself, on the strength of Section 279 of the Act or the Explanation thereunder, the power to insist on a ‘pre-deposit’ of sorts of the compounding fee even without considering the application for compounding.
order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence.
There is sufficient indication from the notes on files that the invocation of the revisionary powers under Section 74A of the DVAT Act was to delay making the refund which was overdue for over six years. The Court is left no manner of doubt is that this was plainly an abuse of power vested in the Commissioner which calls for disapproval in strongest terms.
The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words “the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner” in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) mean only the ‘jurisdictional’ Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT including the […]
Where monies were advanced through the mechanism of equity participation, the intention of the lender – in the present case, the assessee, was to derive income rather than to increase its investment on the capital Such being the case, if there were profits, with the assessee/lender from the investment, it would properly lie in the Revenue side of income
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court found that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot go beyond a remand order when such remand was based on a specific finding. The division bench comprising of Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Justice Najmi Waziri was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s LI & FUNG India, against the Show Cause Notices issued by the Revenue.
