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.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing/modification of an order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the respondent No. 1/Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II under Section 142(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 14B of the eponymous Rules of 1962.
Court is of the opinion that there is no bar for an assessee or declarant to claim credit of advance tax amounts paid previously relative to the assessment years or periods for which it seeks benefits under IDS scheme.
Director of Education has held that 15% additional increase in tuition fee for the session 2015-2016 by the Schools for air conditioning system is illegal and liable to be refunded / adjusted.
It was held that Article 105(2) though gives immunity in respect of everything said in Parliament but subject to the limitation that it should have been said during the sitting of Parliament and in the course of business of Parliament.
High Court held that MSOs to the extent that they directly provide cable service to the subscribers without the intervention of any LCO, would be regarded as the ‘proprietors‘ under Section 7(1) and would be liable to collect and pay the entertainment tax to the Government.
These four appeals by the revenue, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, (“the Act”) are directed against four separate orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) (“ITAT”) for AY 2005-06 and 2006- 07. The following common question of law was framed for decision by this court
No plausible explanation has been offered by the petitioner as to why the matter was not settled at the earlier stages. After the victims have examined themselves on oath and the matter is fixed for final disposal, it is not a fit case to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of settlement.
