Delhi High Court held In the case of Rockland Hotels Ltd. vs. IT Settlement Commission that as per clauses (a)(v) and (a)(vi) of section 245C , only if a director of the petitioner companies has a substantial interest in the specified person (company), then, the petitioner companies
Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. All India Personality Enhancement & Cultural Centre for Scholars Society that he expression ‘undisclosed income’ would connote assets or income, which the Assessee believes to be taxable
a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person ] and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against
Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)-Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jai puria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Oracle Systems Corporation vs. ADIT that it is clear that when a regular assessment is completed in terms of Section 143(3), a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed upon a proper application of mind.
In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding.
Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 1998 234 ITR 170- Following the settled trend of judicial opinion and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court time and again, different High Courts of the country have taken the view that if an expenditure
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Sudhir Budhraja that the findings of the Tribunal are based on sufficient material and cannot be stated to be perverse. On the other hand that the AO had no material
Delhi High Court held In the case of Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific INC. vs. DDIT that the assessing officer has merely intended to revisit the concluded assessments and it is a clear case of change of opinion
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. that in terms of the provision u/s 275 (1) (c), there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply.
