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.
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, New Delhi vs M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) – Section 68, 153A & Bogus Purchases | Demonetization Cash Deposits Case
Facts of the CaseThe assessee, M/s Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., filed returns for
multiple assessment years (AY 2012-13 to AY 2017-18). The Assessing Officer
(AO) made substantial additions on three major grounds:
Unexpla...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs Ramesh Chand Goel (Delhi High Court) – No Addition for Alleged Bogus Purchases Without Substantial Question of Law [ITA 53/2022, AY 2009-10]
Facts of the
CaseThe present appeal was filed by the Revenue
challenging the order dated 30 September 2020 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2009–10. The Assessing Officer (AO) h...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs Imperial Housing Ventures Pvt. Ltd. | Section 69C Income Tax Act | Bogus Purchases Allegation Dismissed by Delhi High Court (2022:DHC:993-DB)
Facts of the
CaseThe present appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging
the order dated 26 August 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) for Assessment Year 2011–12. The Assessing Officer had made ...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Shri Rathi Steel (Dakshin) Ltd. | Section 153A & 68 IT Act | No Addition Without Incriminating Material (Delhi High Court)
Facts of the Case
The
Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A challenging the ITAT order for
AY 2009–10.
The
Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹4,00,00,000 under Section 68 on
...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs S.S. Con Build Pvt. Ltd. | Section 68 & 153A Income Tax Act | Delhi High Court (2022) | No Addition Without Seized Material
Facts of the
CaseThe present appeal was filed by the Revenue
challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 18
February 2021 for Assessment Year 2006–07.The Assessing Officer had made an add...
Vodafone Luxembourg 5 S.A.R.L. vs Income Tax Department, Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi & Anr. (2022) – Reassessment Notice Quashed Due to Contradictory Reasons under Sections 147, 148, 143(2), 142(1) & 151 of Income Tax Act
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, Vodafone Luxembourg 5 S.A.R.L.,
filed a writ petition challenging:
Reassessment notice under Section 148 dated 30 March 2021
Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) read with Sect...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Shri Rathi Steel Ltd. (2022) – No Addition u/s 153A Without Incriminating Material | Delhi High Court
Facts of the CaseThe Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act challenging the ITAT order for AY 2009–10. The Assessing Officer had
made an addition of ₹6 crore under Section 68 on account of...
SAIF II & SAIF III Mauritius Company Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2) Delhi & Anr. – Delhi High Court Upholds Reopening Under Section 148 on ‘Reason to Believe’ Standard (2022:DHC:1112-DB)
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioners, SAIF II Mauritius Company Limited
and SAIF III Mauritius Company Limited, filed writ petitions challenging
notices dated 30th March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act...
M/s Toshiba Corporation vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Tax) – Delhi High Court on Stay of Tax Demand & 20% Pre-deposit Rule [Sections 201(1), 201(1A), 220(6), 156 Income Tax Act]
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, M/s Toshiba Corporation, filed a
writ petition challenging multiple orders directing it to deposit 20% of the
outstanding tax demand. The dispute arose from an order dated 12 November
...
Aditi Infrabuild and Services Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2) & Anr. (2022) – Refund of Excess Tax Recovery Beyond 20% Disputed Demand under Section 220(6) & Section 245 of Income Tax Act
Facts of the Case
The
petitioner sought refund of ₹1,83,91,108/-, which was recovered in
excess of 20% of disputed tax demand for AY 2016-17.
The
excess recovery was made by adjusting refunds of ...