Delhi High Court Judgments — 2012

The Tribunal was correct in allowing the deduction under Section 80HHC, finding that the overwhelming documentary evidence supported the genuineness of the exports. The Court held that the Tribunal's findings of fact, based on evidence, were not perverse and could not be disturbed.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that the AO failed to prove understatement of investment as a foundational fact. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that Section 69B requires proof of understatement before any yardstick can be applied.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69B, holding that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first establish understatement before applying any yardstick to measure it.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The High Court agreed that the AO failed to prove the foundational fact of understatement of investment before invoking Section 69B.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the initial understatement of investment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that Section 69B requires proof of understatement before applying any valuation yardstick.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B, holding that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first establish undervaluation before applying any yardstick to measure the extent of understatement.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the initial fact of understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 69B.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment as required by Section 69B.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B. The High Court held that the AO must first prove understatement of investment as a fact before applying any yardstick to measure the extent of understatement, which was not done in this case.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B. The High Court held that the Assessing Officer must first prove understatement of investment before applying any yardstick to measure the extent of understatement, which was not done in this case.

The Tribunal deleted the addition, holding that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first prove understatement before applying any yardstick to measure it.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69B, holding that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first establish undervaluation before applying any yardstick to measure the extent of understatement.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69B, holding that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first prove undervaluation before using any yardstick to measure the extent of understatement.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B, holding that the AO failed to prove the initial fact of understatement of investment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first prove understatement before applying any yardstick to measure it.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must first prove understatement of investment before applying any yardstick to measure the extent of such understatement. The AO failed to establish the foundational fact of understatement as required by Section 69B.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to prove understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the Assessing Officer must first establish undervaluation before applying any yardstick to measure the extent of understatement.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69B, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the initial understatement of investment. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that Section 69B requires proof of understatement before applying any valuation yardstick.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO, holding that the AO failed to prove the understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first prove undervaluation before applying any yardstick to measure the extent of understatement.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first establish understatement before attempting to measure it.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the initial understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that proving understatement is a prerequisite before applying any yardstick to measure it.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment as required by Section 69B.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69B, holding that the AO failed to prove the understatement of investment as a foundational fact. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO must first establish undervaluation before attempting to measure it.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court noted that the impugned orders of the Tribunal were based on its prior decision for AY 2007-08, which was subsequently followed for AY 2006-07. Crucially, this Court itself had affirmed the Tribunal's findings in a previous judgment dated August 19, 2011, in ITA No.977/2011, through a reasoned order. Given this established precedent and the consistent findings of the Tribunal, the High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the taxability of the assessee for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-2009. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal deleted the entire addition made under Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the foundational fact of understatement of investment before applying any measure.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the initial fact of understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The High Court approved the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the initial understatement of investment as required by Section 69B. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that proving understatement is a prerequisite before applying any yardstick to measure it.

The Tribunal deleted the entire addition made under Section 69B, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the initial understatement of investment, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 69B.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was reopened based on facts already available to the AO during the original assessment. Since the assessee had disclosed full and true particulars, and there was no failure to disclose material facts, the reopening beyond four years was vitiated.

The Tribunal correctly allowed the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition with reference to the year the previous owners acquired the property, not the year the assessee inherited it. The High Court affirmed this view, finding no substantial question of law.

The High Court held that the transactions were colourable devices to create losses, lacking evidence of actual delivery and consideration. The Tribunal's reasoning that acceptance of transactions in the hands of the broker implied genuineness was too broad.

The High Court held that the transactions were colourable devices to create losses, lacking evidence of actual delivery and consideration. The Tribunal's reasoning that acceptance of transactions in the hands of the broker implied genuineness was too broad.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier years. This Court disposed of the present appeals in terms of that previous judgment, as the factual matrix and questions of law were identical.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier years. This Court disposed of the present appeals in terms of that previous judgment, as the factual matrix and questions of law were identical.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier years. This Court disposed of the present appeals in terms of that previous judgment, as the factual matrix and questions of law were identical.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the recipient of the cash payment and therefore did not violate Section 269SS. The High Court concurred, stating the penalty is not ordinarily imposed without deliberate defiance or dishonest conduct.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier years. This Court disposed of the present appeals in terms of that previous judgment, as the factual matrix and questions of law were identical.

The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of its previous judgment dated 25.02.2009, which followed the ITAT's order for earlier assessment years. Appeals against that previous judgment are pending before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier years. This Court disposed of the present appeals in terms of that previous judgment, as the factual matrix and questions of law were identical.

The High Court held that the Insurance Company is liable even if the vehicle was stolen, citing Supreme Court judgments. It also ruled that no addition for future prospects should be made in the absence of evidence, as per established precedent.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier assessment years. The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of that prior judgment, noting that appeals against it were pending before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier assessment years. The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of that prior judgment, noting that appeals against it were pending before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier assessment years. The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of that prior judgment, noting that appeals against it were pending before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier assessment years. The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of that prior judgment, noting that appeals against it were pending before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not warranted because the income forming the subject matter of the notice was not part of the reassessment addition. This court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 147.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier assessment years. The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of that prior judgment, noting that appeals against it were pending before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier assessment years. The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of that prior judgment, noting that appeals against it were pending before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessee for earlier assessment years. The High Court disposed of these appeals in terms of that prior judgment, noting that appeals against it were pending before the Supreme Court.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the Assessing Officer had made reasonable enquiries and that the issue of commencement of construction was debatable, meant the assessment was not erroneous. Therefore, the CIT's revisionary powers were not rightly invoked.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision that the interest had not accrued and was not taxable until the court award became enforceable. The right to interest was considered inchoate until the judgment date.