Explore the case of Pr. CIT vs Ansal Properties: Penalty notice invalidated due to ambiguity in specifying Section 271(1)(c) limb for penalty proceedings.
Assessee was approached by Financial Creditor of FR Tech Innovations Private Limited (CD) for proposing the name of assessee as IRP in the company petition to be filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 in the NCLT, Mumbai Bench by the FR Tech Innovations Private Limited.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. clarifies Section 44, emphasizes specificity in penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c).
Since the legislature vested the discretion to extend the timeframe solely in the AO, he could not have abdicated that function and confined his role to only making a recommendation to the CIT. CIT had no role in extending the timeframe as the AO was in seisin of the assessment proceedings.
Delhi High Court’s decision in Sethi Sons (India) vs Asst. Commissioner, allowing belated refund applications due to technical glitches. Analysis of the case and its implications.
Delhi High Court decision on ITA 719/2023: Upholding deduction of liquidated damages by UT Starcom Inc. based on evidence for delayed service to BSNL and MTNL
Delhi High Court rules in favor of Canara Bank Relief Welfare Society, allowing the filing of revised Form 10 during reassessment proceedings. Details here.
Delhi High Court judgment on PCIT vs GoDaddy: Assessee succeeds in quantum appeal, penalty deleted. Analysis of legal tenability and implications under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Delhi High Court accepts returned income for 12 years as limitation period for fresh assessment order expires. Details of Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd vs PCIT case.
Delhi High Court grants permission for Gorav Gupta to travel to Dubai for two months after filing the charge sheet. Prior approval from the trial court mandated.
