Category: High Courts
Service tax Department can not audit under rule 5A(2)-Delhi High Court quashes/Strikes down Rule 5A2 and Notification 23/2014 Circular 181/7/2014 Ultra Vires to Finance Act. Case Law Details: W.P.(C) 5192/2015 & CM No. 9417/2015 Mega Cabs Pvt. Ltd (Petitioner) vs. UOI and Ors (Respondents) Date of Judgment: 03/06/2016 …
Installation services integral to contract not FTS under DTAA. This was held by Delhi High Court in a recent judgment as under: Case Law: W.P (C) No. 7416/2012 Technip Singapore PTE Ltd…. Petitioner vs. Director of Income Tax & ANR …. Respondent Date of Judgment: 02/06/2016 Coram: Justice …
Striking off name of company us 560-ROC order set aside Delhi High Court restored the name of the company by setting aside the order of ROC striking off the name of the company u/s 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 holding that the object of section 560(6) of the …
Section 292BB can not cure time barred notice us 143(2) issued after prescribed time limit. There is distinction between issue and service of notice-Allahabad High Court Case Law Details: Income Tax Appeal: No. 58 of 2016 Appellant :- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Respondent :- M/S Sushila Umrao …
Fresh tangible material not required to reopen an assessment where the initially the return of income is processed u/s 143(1) and an intimation is sent to the assessee, the reopening of such assessment requires the AO to form reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment, but such reasons do …
Reopening us 147 148 invalid if assessee replied questionnaire raising specific queries during original assessment as it would amount to change of opinion-Delhi High Court. Case Law Details: WP(C) 2526/2015 Allied Strips Limited (Petitioner) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent) Date of Judgment: 12/05/2016 Coram: Justice Sanjeev …
CBDT Instruction No 1-2015 held illegal and quashed by Delhi High Court It further directed that the said instruction shall not be relied upon to deny refunds to the Assessees in whose cases notices might have been issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case Law Details: …
PE under Indo-US DTAA-Adobe India not PE of Adobe Systems USA as agent must have authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the enterprise-Delhi High Court Case Details: WP(C) 2384, 2385, 2390 of 2013 Adobe Systems Incorporated (Petitioner) vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax & Anr (Respondents) Date of …
Income Tax Website Legal Corner. Questions of Law admitted or dismissed. by Bombay High Court to be displayed sectionwise. Case Law Details: ITA No. 2287 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax8 (Appellant) vs. M/s. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd (Respondent) Date of Judgment: 06-05-2016 Coram: Justice M. S. Sanklecha and Justice A. K. Menon The question: This appeal was filed by the Revenue raises questions with regard to …
Section 40(a)(i) is discriminatory not applicable to DTAA. This was held by the Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment as under: Case Law Details: ITA 7/2007 Commissioner of Income Tax ….. Appellant vs. Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd. (HII) …. Respondent Date of Judgment: 13/05/2016 Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice …
