Delhi High Court held In the case of Denso India Limited vs. CIT that there can be no dispute that the AO would normally accept the figures given in TP report, if they do not call for his interference. However, his job also extends to critically evaluating materials and in cases which do require scrutiny, go ahead and do so.
Delhi High Court held In the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT that absence of a provision similar to sec. 40(a) (i) does not mean that the Assessee would also be disentitled to claim deduction on account of salaries in the year to which such expenses pertained even though
A plain reading of reasons, gives rise to doubts whether some lines have gone missing or some punctuation marks have been left out. Grammatically also the reasons recorded make little sense. It is well settled that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment have to speak for themselves.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Mrs. Sujata Sharma vs. Shri Manu Gupta that post Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which amended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, all rights which were available to a Hindu male are now also available to a Hindu female, there is no reason why Hindu women should be denied the position of a Karta.
Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT vs. New Skies Satellite BV that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 (VCLT) is universally accepted as authoritatively laying down the principles governing the law of treaties.
(i) Whether by a unilateral amendment in the Income Tax Act, an interpretation of the same term in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement can be changed? (ii) Whether by merely terming an amendment as ‘clarificatory’ and making it retrospective infact renders its retrospectivity valid in law?
Pr. CIT vs. M Tech India P. Ltd (Delhi High Court) Where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg & others vs. CCE that the SCN which proposed the penalty would have to make out a case for how Rule 26 is attracted. In the present case, apart from merely stating that the three Appellants were in control of the affairs
Delhi High Court held In the case of Abhishek Govil & Somya Salwan vs. CIT that the maintenance agreements expressly referred to the payments in question as “Maintenance and service charges”. A plain reading of the agreements also indicates that the said charges were payable as consideration for providing services mentioned therein.
Delhi High Court held in case of Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO upheld the order of Delhi ITAT and held that under Section 79 of the Act the set off and carry forward of loss, which is otherwise available under the provisions of Chapter VI,
