Follow Us :

Advocate Bharat Agarwal

Latest Judiciary


Interest under Section 35FF Commences from Appellate Authority’s Order Date: Delhi HC

Excise Duty : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 35FF of the Excise Act indicates that interest ...

July 27, 2023 591 Views 0 comment Print

Demanding legitimate dues is not extortion under Section 385 of IPC

Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 385 of IPC pertaining to extortion as...

July 25, 2023 1530 Views 0 comment Print

Public Authority not required to provide ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ under RTI: CIC

Corporate Law : Unravel the Rahul Gupta vs CPIO case where the CIC upheld that public authorities are not obliged to provide opinions or advice u...

June 28, 2023 2136 Views 0 comment Print

Order Supported by Reasoning, Documents and Facts: Not Arbitrary

Corporate Law : Rajasthan High Court upheld order of Electricity Ombudsman, which allowed recovery of transformation losses and pro-rata transform...

June 28, 2023 438 Views 0 comment Print

Licence/ Royalty fees to facilitate Trading Operation & Effective Management is Revenue in Nature

Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely ...

January 27, 2016 1486 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Posts in Advocate Bharat Agarwal

Interest under Section 35FF Commences from Appellate Authority’s Order Date: Delhi HC

July 27, 2023 591 Views 0 comment Print

In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 35FF of the Excise Act indicates that interest would commence from the date of the order of the Appellate Authority as distinct from the making of an application which is prescribed to be the starting point insofar as Section 11BB of the Act is concerned.

Demanding legitimate dues is not extortion under Section 385 of IPC

July 25, 2023 1530 Views 0 comment Print

In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 385 of IPC pertaining to extortion as in the present case, the petitioners acted as per the agreement between the parties to demand their legitimate dues.

Public Authority not required to provide ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ under RTI: CIC

June 28, 2023 2136 Views 0 comment Print

Unravel the Rahul Gupta vs CPIO case where the CIC upheld that public authorities are not obliged to provide opinions or advice under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Order Supported by Reasoning, Documents and Facts: Not Arbitrary

June 28, 2023 438 Views 0 comment Print

Rajasthan High Court upheld order of Electricity Ombudsman, which allowed recovery of transformation losses and pro-rata transformer cost from large industrial consumers. The court reasoned that an order supported by factual findings and necessary documents cannot be considered arbitrary.

Licence/ Royalty fees to facilitate Trading Operation & Effective Management is Revenue in Nature

January 27, 2016 1486 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management to be carried more effectively is revenue in nature even if advantage may endure for an indefinite future.

Gifting of property will entitle assessee to claim exemption u/s 54 if left with only one

January 21, 2016 2539 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Delhi held in case of ITO v Shri Sameer Jasuja the property has been gifted by the person to his wife, then Assessee will entitled to the exemption u/s 54F if he is left with one property. It further held that section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor assessee.

Notice u/s 153C invalid if no satisfaction been recorded by Assessing Officer

November 17, 2015 668 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT-Ahmedabad In the case of M/s Shiv Associates v DCIT quashed the notice u/s 153C relying on the Judgment of the similar case related to the assessee in which the notices u/s 153C were quashed as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO.

Mutual Transactions can’t come under section 2(22)(e)

November 17, 2015 1730 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Kolkata held in case of ITO v Smt. Gayatri Chakroborty that where the transactions are mutual in nature or there is benefit or no benefit to each other, then these kind of transactions will not come under the purview of section 2(22)(e).

Without any supporting material A.O. cannot substitute market value

November 17, 2015 397 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held in the case of DCIT v. Rama Capital and Financial Services Ltd. that without any substantive ground reopening cannot be done on the basis of change of opinion. It Further held that without any supporting material, the A.O. cannot substitute market value.

Principal of Consistency should be followed on principal laid down in case of Assessee’s Sister Concern

November 17, 2015 788 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT v. The Indian Hotels Co. Pvt. Ltd. that principle of consistency should be followed when there were similar issues and the similar principal was laid down in the case of Assessee’s Sister Concern.

Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031