a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books of account or documents or assets, seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person ] and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against
Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)-Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things. While the Jai puria Group may be the owner of the photocopies of the documents it is quite possible that the originals may be owned by some other person.
The Hon’ble (P&H) High Court in the case of Pr.C.I.T. vs ITAT Delhi Bench, New Delhi and anothers while dealing with the scope of power of Tribunal for grant of stay against the prosecution proceedings held that once
In the case of Vishal Garg & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., Punjab & Haryana HC instructed CBDT extend due date of Tax Audit cases to 31st October 2015 from existing 30th September 2015. Its not clear if the due date for non audit cases also been extended
Delhi High Court held In the case of Oracle Systems Corporation vs. ADIT that it is clear that when a regular assessment is completed in terms of Section 143(3), a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed upon a proper application of mind.
A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay prosecution. The said finding is the bone of contention between the parties. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh),
Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)- there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine and further observed that the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters.
In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding.
Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 1998 234 ITR 170- Following the settled trend of judicial opinion and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court time and again, different High Courts of the country have taken the view that if an expenditure
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Sudhir Budhraja that the findings of the Tribunal are based on sufficient material and cannot be stated to be perverse. On the other hand that the AO had no material
