New Delhi court held in PR. CIT Vs Control and Switch gear Contractors Ltd that if the assessee had disclosed the income in its return of income though wrongly disclosed it did not mean that the assessee had tried to hide its income so that wrongly disclosed income could not be considered as an undisclosed income and penalty u/s 271(1)( C) could not be levied.
The High Court of New Delhi has held in case of CIT-1 Vs Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd that second proviso to sec 40(a)(ia) will have retrospective effect from 01-04-2005 which means that if the assessee had forgot to deduct the TDS on payment
The assessee filed its return of income on 02.12.2013, which was processed u/s 143(1) at the returned income and accordingly refund order of Rs.20,16,957/- was issued. Subsequently A.O. based on reporting made by statutory auditor in the audit report in the form of 3CD u/s 44AB
CIT vs Noida Medicare Centre Ltd (Delhi High Court) Even though the sales tax was paid in a subsequent year, the liability to pay sales tax arose in the accounting period relevant to the assessment year in which the machinery was purchased.
CIT vs. Vaish Associates (Delhi High Court) A plain reading of Clause 6(a) leads to a conclusion that the term’ allocable profits’ was used to mean ‘book profits’ as used in Section 40(b)(v)of the Act or otherwise the reference to the section in the Clause has no meaning.
In the case of Avinash Gupta and Ors V/s Union of India and Ors It was held by Delhi High Court that in this case it is pleaded that the petition is in the nature of public interest. However, the petition is not drafted as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
A search took place on 14.02.2006 in the premises of M/s Radico Khaitan.In the course of these search proceedings, various documents including reports narrating amounts alleged to have been received or receivable from various members of the UPDA and the basis thereof were recovered.
In the of CIT Vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the AO erred in disallowing the capitalization of the additional customs duty in the manner claimed by the Assessee and adding the entire customs duty paid in the relevant AY to the income of the Assessee.
In the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs CIT, Delhi High Court inter-alia held that the expression ‘BPO’ and ‘KPO’ are, plainly, understood in the sense that whereas, BPO does not necessarily involve advanced skills
Delhi High Court held in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT that No disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee. Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to shares bought for strategic purposes.
