Blog Categories
All Posts
Accounting Standard 8
CBDT 1
Chartered Accountant 1
Chartered Engineer 1
Greetings 1
Income Tax Act 2025 0
Labour Law 2
MCA Notification 1
MSME 1
NGO- Trust & Society 0
PLACEMENT 1
Press Information Bureau, Government of India (PIB) 2
RBI & Banks 1
RERA 0
RTI 1
STUDENT ICAI 1
Virtual Webinar 4
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
M/s McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-6 (Delhi High Court, 2019) – KPO vs Knowledge Management Services & Precedential Value under Income Tax Law
Facts of the CaseThe assessee, M/s McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt.
Ltd., filed appeals against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years 2011–12 and 2012–13.The core disput...
Vikram Krishnan vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court) – Section 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend on Shareholder Advances
Facts of the CaseThe assessee, an individual deriving income from salary, house
property, capital gains, and interest, was a director and 50% shareholder in a
closely held company, M/s Charu Home Products (P) Ltd...
Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Nortel Networks Singapore Pte Ltd (2018) – Delhi High Court | Permanent Establishment & Royalty under India–Singapore DTAA
Facts of the
Case
The Revenue filed appeals under Section 260A challenging orders in
favour of the assessee, Nortel Networks Singapore Pte Ltd.
The dispute involved cross-border transactions and applicability...
M/s. McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-6 (Delhi High Court) – ITAT Findings on KPO Classification Not Binding as Precedent
Facts of the Case
The
assessee, M/s. McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., filed
appeals against ITAT orders for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13.
The
ITAT had concluded that the assessee was engaged...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs Jindal Photo Ltd. (2018) – Delhi High Court | Low Tax Effect Appeal Dismissed Without Examining Merits
Facts of the
CaseAs observed from the order (Page 1–2), the Revenue
filed appeals (ITA 1337/2018, 1338/2018, 1341/2018) against the respondent
assessee, Jindal Photo Ltd. During the hearing, it was submitted by the ...
M/s Infonox Software Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court, 2019) – Withdrawal of Petition with Liberty under Section 139(1) Income Tax Act
Facts of the CaseThe petitioners, M/s Infonox Software Private Limited &
Others, filed multiple criminal miscellaneous petitions before the Delhi
High Court challenging proceedings initiated by the Income Tax...
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh vs Parabolic Drugs Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2019) – Condonation of Delay Rejected due to Government Lethargy under Income Tax Act
Facts of the Case
The
Revenue filed an appeal against the ITAT order dated 17 June 2011 for AY
2006–07.
There
was a delay of 928 days in filing the appeal and 1656 days in
re-filing the sam...
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–5 vs Jindal Photo Ltd. (2018) – Delhi High Court | Low Tax Effect Appeal Dismissed Without Adjudication on Merits
Facts of the
Case
The appeals were filed by the Revenue (Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax–5) against Jindal Photo Ltd.
The matter came before the Delhi High Court involving multiple
Income Tax App...
M/s Infonox Software Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court, 2019) – Withdrawal of Criminal Petitions under Section 139(1) Income Tax Act
Facts of the CaseThe petitioners, M/s Infonox Software Pvt. Ltd. and others,
filed multiple criminal miscellaneous petitions before the Delhi High Court
seeking relief against proceedings initiated by the Deputy ...
Surendra Kumar Jain vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III, New Delhi & Anr. | Delhi High Court | Reassessment Without Disposal of Objections Held Invalid (Sections 147/148 Income Tax Act)
Facts of the Case
The
petitioner’s assessment for AY 2011–12 was reopened by the Assessing
Officer (AO).
Reasons
for reopening were provided to the petitioner.
The
petitioner filed obj...