Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
Knowledge Portal
Click here to explore deep insights, FAQs, and comprehensive tax guides.
Explore Now
Showing filtered results. Clear filters
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Adidas India Trading Pvt. Ltd. – Advertisement Expenditure on Licensed Brand Held Allowable as Business Deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act
Facts of the CaseThe assessee, Adidas India Trading Pvt. Ltd., filed its return
of income for Assessment Year 1997-98 declaring a loss. During assessment
proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII vs Mukesh Luthra | Reassessment under Sections 147/148 Invalid in Absence of Tangible Material – Delhi High Court
Facts of the
CaseThe Revenue initiated reassessment proceedings
against the assessee for Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 by
issuing notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the allegati...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Assessee (Batch of Appeals) – Scope of Rectification under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act When ITAT Orders Are Already Under Challenge Before High Court
Facts of the CaseThe assessees had filed appeals before the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which were dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved
by the orders of the ITAT, the assessees preferred appeals before the De...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Various Assessees – Revenue Appeals Dismissed Due to Low Tax Effect and Acceptance of Findings in Connected Cases | Delhi High Court
Facts of the Case
The
Revenue preferred appeals before the Delhi High Court against certain
assessees.
The
Court had earlier passed an order dated 02.03.2009 seeking clarification
regarding ap...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs NIIT Ltd. | Delhi High Court Holds Franchise Revenue Sharing is Not Rent and No TDS is Deductible under Section 194-I of the Income Tax Act
Facts of the CaseNIIT Ltd., a public limited company engaged in the business of
computer education and training, conducted its educational operations both
through its own centres and through franchisees operating under...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII vs Mukesh Luthra | Reassessment under Sections 147/148 Cannot Be Sustained Without Tangible Material – Delhi High Court
Facts of the
CaseThe present case involved reassessment proceedings
initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 on the alle...
Analyzing the Jurisprudential Impact of CIT v. Bal Kishan Goenka and Amar Nath Aggarwal v. CIT: Evaluating the Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction and Revenue Strategy under the Income Tax Act, 1961
Facts of the CaseThe Revenue filed appeals before the Delhi High Court against
four assessees through ITA Nos. 1188/2007, 603/2006, 1016/2007 and 1193/2007.
The Court noted that there were seven assessees involved in t...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VIII vs. Mukesh Luthra | Reassessment under Sections 147/148 Quashed Due to Absence of Tangible Material – Delhi High Court
Facts of the
CaseThe assessee had claimed deduction under Section
80HHC in respect of export transactions. The Assessing Officer reopened the
assessments under Section 148 on the allegation that the export proceeds we...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs NIIT Ltd. – Whether Revenue Sharing with Franchisees Towards Infrastructure Claims Attracts TDS Under Section 194-I as Rent
Facts of the CaseNIIT Ltd. was engaged in providing computer education and
training through its own centres as well as through franchisees operating under
licence agreements. Under the franchise model, franchisees prov...
Commissioner of Income Tax vs Various Assessees | Revenue Appeals Dismissed Due to Low Tax Effect and Acceptance of Identical Issues | Delhi High Court
Facts of the CaseA group of seven assessees was involved in related
proceedings. However, appeals were filed by the Revenue only in respect of four
assessees. During earlier proceedings, the High Court noted that the R...