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.
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi High Court) – Section 260A | Allowability of Salary Provision & Accounting Policy Change
Facts of the CaseThe appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking (HUDCO), filed
its return for AY 2007–08 declaring income, later revised downward. The case
was scrutinized and assessed under Section 143(3).Subsequently, ...
Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs ZTE Corporation | Delhi High Court | Software Payments Not Royalty under Indo-China DTAA | Section 9(1)(vi) & Section 234B Analysis
Facts of the
CaseThe present appeals (ITA 763/2019, 769/2019, and
771/2019) were filed by the Revenue before the Delhi High Court against ZTE
Corporation. The dispute revolved around the taxability of payments receive...
M/s McKinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-6 (Delhi High Court) – Review Allowed on Transfer Pricing Errors under Sections 92B & 260A of Income Tax Act
Facts of the
CaseThe assessee, M/s McKinsey Knowledge Centre
India Pvt. Ltd., engaged in IT-enabled services (ITES), including research,
information services, and IT support services, challenged the order of the...
Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs ZTE Corporation | Delhi High Court | Section 9(1)(vi), Section 234B, Indo-China DTAA | Software Payments Not Royalty
Facts of the
CaseThe present appeals were filed by the Revenue
against the assessee, ZTE Corporation, before the Delhi High Court. The central
issue arose from the taxability of payments made in relation to software
...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, New Delhi vs Jakhotia Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (2020) – Appeal Dismissed Due to Low Tax Effect under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019
Facts of the CaseThe Appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(Central)-3, New Delhi, filed appeals against the Respondent, Jakhotia Plastics
Pvt. Ltd., before the Delhi High Court. The appeals arose from orders...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kohinoor Foods Limited (Delhi High Court) – Scope of Section 263 Revision Power & Requirement of Proper Inquiry
Facts of the
CaseThe assessee, Kohinoor Foods Limited, was engaged
in the business of manufacturing and trading of rice. For Assessment Years
(AYs) 1999–2000, 2000–2001, and 2001–2002, assessments were completed...
Religare Finvest Limited & Anr. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (Delhi High Court, 2019) – Special Audit under Section 142(2A) of Income Tax Act
Facts of the
Case
The petitioners, Religare Enterprises Ltd. and Religare
Finvest Ltd., are engaged in financial services including lending and
investment.
For AY 2016–17, returns were filed and selec...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, New Delhi vs Jakhotia Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) – Appeal Dismissed Due to Low Tax Effect under CBDT Circular No. 17/2019
Facts of the CaseThe present matter involves appeals filed by the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, New Delhi against Jakhotia Plastics
Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court under Income Tax Appeal Nos....
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Deepak & Ors. | Meenakshi Kathpal & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2020) – Counting of Past Service for Promotion after Transfer
Facts of the CaseThe present writ petitions were filed by the petitioners
challenging an order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT).The dispute revolved around whether the past service
...
Religare Finvest Limited & Anr. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (Delhi High Court, 2019) – Special Audit under Section 142(2A) – Scope, Natural Justice & Judicial Review
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioners, Religare Enterprises Ltd.
and its subsidiary Religare Finvest Ltd., are engaged in financial
services including lending and investment.For Assessment Year 2016–17, their returns
we...