Delhi High Court Judgments — 2015

The High Court held that the deduction for cess and cess surcharge was not allowable as it was levied on royalty and beyond the state legislature's competence. The court also found that the machinery was not installed and ready for use before the specified date, thus disallowing the investment allowance.

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination in these appeals. This decision was based on a previous ruling by the same court.

The Delhi High Court held that, in view of its own decision dated 20th July 2015 in ITA No. 444 of 2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. P.D. Associates (P) Ltd.), no substantial question of law arose for determination in the present appeals. Consequently, the Court dismissed all three appeals. The reasoning hinges on the precedent set by the earlier judgment, which presumably dealt with similar issues or legal principles that rendered the current appeals devoid of a substantial question of law requiring adjudication by the High Court. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the same High Court has already determined that no substantial question of law arises in a similar context, subsequent appeals on the same grounds will also be dismissed on that basis. No specific relief was granted to the assessee, and no issue was left undecided.

The High Court held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were for its own business benefit and not at the behest of the foreign associated enterprise. Therefore, there was no international transaction involving AMP expenses that warranted a transfer pricing adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Assessee and its AE. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on AMP expenses were not permissible.

The High Court held that the deduction for cess and cess surcharge was not allowable as it was levied on royalty and beyond the state legislature's competence. The court also found that the machinery was not installed and ready for use before the specified date, thus disallowing the investment allowance.

The High Court held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were for its own business benefit and not at the behest of the foreign associated enterprise. Therefore, the Revenue failed to demonstrate an international transaction involving AMP expenses.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Assessee and its AE. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on AMP expenses were not permissible.

The Delhi High Court held that, in view of its own decision dated 20th July 2015 in ITA No. 444 of 2015 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. P.D. Associates (P) Ltd.), no substantial question of law arose for determination in the present appeals. Consequently, the Court dismissed all three appeals. The reasoning hinges on the precedent set by the earlier judgment, which presumably dealt with similar issues or legal principles that rendered the current appeals devoid of a substantial question of law requiring adjudication by the High Court. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the same High Court has already determined that no substantial question of law arises in a similar context, subsequent appeals on the same grounds will also be dismissed on that basis. No specific relief was granted to the assessee, and no issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Assessee and its AE. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on AMP expenses were not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Assessee and its AE. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on AMP expenses were not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Assessee and its AE. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on AMP expenses were not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Assessee and its AE. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on AMP expenses were not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Assessee and its AE. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on AMP expenses were not permissible.

The High Court held that the deduction for cess and cess surcharge was not allowable as it was levied on royalty and beyond the state legislature's competence. The court also found that the machinery was not installed and ready for use before the specified date, thus disallowing the investment allowance.

The Delhi High Court held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate a tangible international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Indian entity and its foreign AE. Consequently, the question of determining the arm's length price did not arise, and the Bright Line Test was not a valid method for this purpose.

The Delhi High Court held that the Revenue failed to demonstrate a tangible international transaction involving AMP expenses between the Indian entity and its foreign AE. Consequently, the question of determining the arm's length price did not arise, and the Bright Line Test was not a valid method for this purpose.

The tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt. However, due to the absence of specific provisions for determining the cost of acquisition of intangible assets at the relevant time, the amount could not be brought to capital gains tax.

The High Court held that if the assessee has possession and control of the property and is exploiting it for its own purposes, it should be considered as belonging to the assessee, even if legal ownership has not formally transferred. The ITAT's decision to exclude the property was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its onus by proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the immediate lender (TIL). The assessee is not required to prove the creditworthiness of the sub-lender (TCL).

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was unsustainable as the seized documents did not belong to the assessee and a proper satisfaction note was not recorded. Consequently, the additions made under Section 68 were deleted.

The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT had not properly examined the facts specific to the assessee. The court found it necessary to remand the matter to the ITAT to re-examine the evidence and determine if additions under Section 68 were sustainable.

The Revenue stated that in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, these appeals were not pressed. The Court also noted that on merits, the appeals required dismissal based on a previous decision.

The Tribunal held that the fabrication of steel structures by the assessee qualified as 'manufacture' for the purposes of Section 80IC. The court found that the assessee had furnished adequate evidence of its manufacturing activity, including excise returns, purchase bills, and job work payments.

The tribunal noted that the OL had scrutinized the records and found that all necessary compliances under the Companies Act, 1956, were made. The affairs of the company were not conducted prejudicially. Therefore, the company was ordered to be wound up and dissolved.

The ITAT correctly followed established judicial precedents and the Revenue's own stance before the Bombay High Court in interpreting Rule 8D(2)(ii). The tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction by applying this interpretation.