In the case of AVTEC Limited Vs. DCIT, Delhi High Court has held that- 1. Assessee is under no obligation to file the same document during assessment in each AY. The AO is to look at the litigation history of the assessee himself and cannot expect the assessee to inform him. 2. principle of consistency is […]
In the opinion of the bench, e reopening based on mere reappraisal of existing material is without jurisdiction, and therefore, is invalid. The bench, while hearing an appeal filed by the department against the order of the ITAT, held that the assessee’s duty is only to disclose facts and not to make inferences. It was also held that the decision of the division bench of the Court in Consolidated Photo is no longer a good law.
1. The main argument on merits by both Petitioners is that without a search warrant in their respective names, and without there being a demand raised and finalised, there is no power under Section 132 read with Section 132B of the Act to require RBL to issue a DD favouring the Department for the balance […]
Many cases are coming to the courts where the legitimacy of the search and seizure is challenged. It is being continuously held in cases coming to the courts that before a search, conditions mentioned in section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) should be fulfilled.
In Principal Commissioner of Income tax v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court held that re-assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be made only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of IT Department.
Transfer Pricing : Impact of delayed associated enterprise receivables subsumed in working capital adjustment made by the assessee company. Delhi High Court confirms ITAT’s deletion of notional interest adjustment on delayed AE-receivables.
High Court held that to say that the person being prosecuted or proceeded against can only be ‘shown’ such documents, but not provided copies thereof is untenable even on a plain reading of Article 26 (2) of the OECD Model Convention.
There has been constant reopening of assessments by Assessing Authorities on mere change of opinion while law is well settled on the point that an assessment cannot reopened by recourse to section 147/ 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer(AO).
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Deepak Malhotra vs Deepti Malhotra and Ors, has held that the proportion of the husband’s income to be awarded as maintenance pendente lite to the wife is dependent on the surrounding circumstances and cannot be determined by a strict mathematical formula.
A perusal of the common order of the ITAT shows that it first dealt with one common ground raised by the Assessee in all its appeals which concerned the jurisdictional issue of the validity of the invocation of Section 153A of the Act by the Revenue. It was contended that for the AYs 2000- 01 […]
