Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course
The Hon’ble Delhi HC in the case of Lufthansa Cargo India held that the fee for technical services would not be taxable in India where such services are utilized forearning income from any sources outside India.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that had the AO cared, the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share applicants would have been apparent. Even otherwise
Delhi High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Shri Ram Niwas Verma held that acceptance of application by settlement commission in respect of gold which is covered in sec 123 is without jurisdiction as 3rd proviso to Sec 127B (1) provide a clear bar on the applications made in respect of goods covered u/s 123.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Orion Enterprises held that as per Basmati Rice Rules if the rice doesn’t qualify as Basmati rice then the same cannot be exported as the export of non-Basmati rice is illegal and liable to confiscation.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alcatel Lucent Canada held that the income earned from the supply of hardware equipment where the embedded software facilitates the functioning of the equipmentcannot be taxed as royalty payments for use of software because there could not be any independent use of such software.
In the case of Pespsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, (Delhi High Court) has held that third proviso to section 254 (2A) through the insertion of the expression – ‘even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee’– by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008
HC held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount not being bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified.
Whether the CESTAT is empowered to grant or extend Stay of recovery of demand beyond 365 days from the date when the Stay Order was initially passed, notwithstanding that the delay in disposal of the appeal was not attributable to an assessee?
Delhi High Court has held in the case of DIT vs. M/s Lufthansa Cargo India that Retrospective amendments seeking to tax income of non-residents does not affect the source rule’. The amendment makes no any difference to the non-taxability of payments made to foreign companies if the income accrues abroad – Section 9.
