The Delhi High Court Has Held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax that both the assessee as well as the department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal.
In a Historic/Landmark Judgment Delhi High Court in the case Avinash Gupta Vs. UOI has although not allowed extension of due date for filing ITR for AY 2015-16 but instructed the Govt. to ensure availability of forms for tax audit from the beginning of next assessment year.
In the case of CIT vs Kapil Nagpal, it was held by the Delhi High Court that purchase of an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes did not violate 54F conditions. Further the exclusive ownership of the residential house on the date of transfer is required to prove violation of Section 54F.
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.
