Delhi High Court Judgments — 2015

The High Court held that Section 80I(2)(iv) does not require a master-servant relationship for 'employment' and that workers employed through a contractor can be considered for the purpose of qualifying for the deduction under Section 80I.

The Tribunal held that commission received from Indian parties on transfer of export orders is eligible for deduction under Section 80-HHC. This view was supported by a Special Bench decision of the ITAT and subsequently approved by the Supreme Court.

The High Court held that the issue regarding the admissibility of the deduction under Section 80-I was debatable. Therefore, the AO was not justified in invoking Section 154 for rectification, as a debatable issue does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,35,00,000 was rightly retained by the CIT(Appeals) as it represented premium for investment. It also confirmed the addition of Rs. 49,64,904, linking it to undisclosed sale consideration. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal held that the interest rate of 4% charged by the assessee was at arm's length, following its earlier order for a subsequent assessment year. The court agreed with the Tribunal, finding no justification for the upward adjustment made by the TPO and DRP.

The High Court held that the receipt of the award was a capital receipt and not income taxable under the Act. The Court clarified that the question of exemption under Section 10 arises only if the receipt is first determined to be income.

The Delhi High Court held that it has the power to extend a stay order granted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, provided the circumstances and the ends of justice warrant such an extension. This principle was affirmed in the case of CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited. The Court noted that the petitioner had already been granted a conditional stay by the ITAT, and their appeal was pending before the Tribunal. Given that the appeal was in the midst of being heard and the petitioner could not seek further extension from the ITAT due to the time limitation, the Court found it to be in the interest of justice to continue the stay order granted by the Tribunal until the disposal of the appeal by the ITAT. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

The High Court held that the "reason to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer was not based on any material that had come to his knowledge, but rather on mere suspicion. The court found that the reasons recorded did not demonstrate a nexus or germane relevance to a reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment. The purported belief that income had escaped assessment was considered to be in the realm of mere suspicion, not supported by any direct or circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that the law requires "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect." Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.06.2014 was set aside, and the proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 18.03.2014 were quashed. The court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by not proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the Section 10A deduction based on the nature of services rendered and the principle of consistency from previous years. It also found that the comparables used for transfer pricing adjustments were correctly accepted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by not proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the share applicants. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the facts.

The High Court held that the receipt of the award was a capital receipt and not income taxable under the Act. The Court clarified that the question of exemption under Section 10 arises only if the receipt is first determined to be income.

The High Court held that the receipt of the award was a capital receipt and not income taxable under the Act. The Court clarified that the question of exemption under Section 10 arises only if the receipt is first determined to be income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the Section 10A deduction as the services rendered were IT-enabled and covered under the relevant notification. It also upheld the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments, finding that the comparables selected were functionally similar and could not be rejected on grounds like differing financial year-ends or turnover thresholds.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was for acquiring access to technical knowledge and information for improving the manufacturing process, not for acquiring an asset that became part of the revenue-earning apparatus. Therefore, it was revenue expenditure.

The High Court held that the ITAT's approach was misdirected and that the classification of the licensed space as stock-in-trade did not change the character of the transaction. The income was rightly returned as income from house property.

The High Court found that the AO and ITAT erred in applying Rule 8D by not correctly considering the average value of investments. The CIT(Appeals) also made an error in his calculation.

The Delhi High Court, following a previous judgment, held that license fees paid up to July 31, 1999, were capital expenditure, while those on a revenue-sharing basis after August 1, 1999, were revenue expenditure. The court remanded the issue of interest on delayed payments for fresh consideration.

The High Court of Delhi, following its consistent approach in similar circumstances, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court reasoned that issues sought to be urged as questions of law should be taken up in appropriate proceedings after the ITAT had decided the pending applications for rectification under Section 254(2). The court granted liberty to the appellant to urge any question, including those raised in the present appeals, in light of the final order to be made by the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to endeavor to complete its proceedings on the rectification applications at its earliest convenience, preferably within four months from the date of the order. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to establish himself as the proprietor of the payee firm and did not prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act by establishing that the loan was for a lesser amount and had been repaid.

The High Court of Delhi, following its consistent approach in similar circumstances, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court reasoned that issues sought to be urged as questions of law should be taken up in appropriate proceedings after the ITAT had decided the pending applications for rectification under Section 254(2). The court granted liberty to the appellant to urge any question, including those raised in the present appeals, in light of the final order to be made by the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to endeavor to complete its proceedings on the rectification applications at its earliest convenience, preferably within four months from the date of the order. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.

The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the appellant to raise issues in light of the final order to be made by the ITAT on their rectification applications. The ITAT was directed to expedite its proceedings.

The High Court held that interest under Section 234B is not leviable on the assessee. The primary liability to deduct tax at source under Section 195 lies with the payer, who may be considered an assessee-in-default if they fail to do so.

The High Court of Delhi, following its consistent approach in similar circumstances, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court reasoned that issues sought to be urged as questions of law should be taken up in appropriate proceedings after the ITAT had decided the pending applications for rectification under Section 254(2). The court granted liberty to the appellant to urge any question, including those raised in the present appeals, in light of the final order to be made by the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to endeavor to complete its proceedings on the rectification applications at its earliest convenience, preferably within four months from the date of the order. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.

The High Court of Delhi, following its consistent approach in similar circumstances, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court reasoned that issues sought to be urged as questions of law should be taken up in appropriate proceedings after the ITAT had decided the pending applications for rectification under Section 254(2). The court granted liberty to the appellant to urge any question, including those raised in the present appeals, in light of the final order to be made by the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to endeavor to complete its proceedings on the rectification applications at its earliest convenience, preferably within four months from the date of the order. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds.

The tribunal held that a spouse who voluntarily incapacitates themselves by resigning from a well-paying job without justification cannot claim maintenance. The purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to support those without independent means, not to allow one spouse to 'milk' the other.

The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, this dismissal was granted with liberty to the appellant (ONGC Videsh Ltd.) to raise any question, including those presented in the current appeals, in light of the final order to be passed by the ITAT on their Section 254(2) rectification applications. The Court directed the ITAT to endeavor to complete its proceedings on these applications and render a final order at its earliest convenience, preferably within four months from the date of the order. The operative direction is to await the ITAT's decision on rectification before pursuing further appeals on the merits of the original order.

The Tribunal held that the assessees suffered a business loss on the sale of NCDs and warrants, and this loss constituted an allowable deduction. The arrangement with UTI was not considered a colorable device to avoid tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessees suffered a business loss on the sale of NCDs and warrants, and this loss constituted an allowable deduction. The arrangement with UTI was not considered a colorable device to avoid tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessees suffered a business loss on the sale of NCDs and warrants, and this loss constituted an allowable deduction. The arrangement with UTI was not considered a colorable device to avoid tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessees suffered a business loss on the sale of NCDs and warrants, and this loss constituted an allowable deduction. The arrangement with UTI was not considered a colorable device to avoid tax.

The tribunal upheld the CIT's order, holding that the assessment made under Section 153C against a dissolved entity is invalid. The High Court agreed with this view, citing previous judgments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer and builder, not merely a contractor, based on the nature of the contracts and the scope of work. The Court affirmed that the assessee's activities met the criteria for deduction under Section 80-IB(10).

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer and builder, not merely a contractor, based on the nature of the contracts and the scope of work. The Court affirmed that the assessee's activities met the criteria for deduction under Section 80-IB(10).

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a developer and builder, not merely a contractor, based on the nature of the contracts and the scope of work. The Court affirmed that the assessee's activities met the criteria for deduction under Section 80-IB(10).

The ITAT upheld the CIT's order, holding that the assessment made in the name of a dissolved entity after amalgamation is invalid. The High Court agreed with this view, citing previous rulings.

The tribunal upheld the CIT's order, holding that the assessment made under Section 153C in respect of a non-existent entity (the dissolved original assessee) was invalid. This decision followed established High Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in departing from the assessee's consistent accounting method without cogent reasons. The High Court affirmed that the project completion method is acceptable and the AO's selective application of AS-7 was illogical, leading to hypothetical income.

The High Court held that the amount advanced by the firm to the assessee was not a loan or advance from SISICOL, as the firm had independent funds and the transaction was a trade debt. The revenue failed to establish a direct nexus between SISICOL's funds and the loan to the assessee.

The High Court held that the findings of the ITAT and CIT (Appeals) regarding the lease deed and rental income were questions of fact. The rental income accruing to Smt. Adarsh Kaur Gill cannot be included in the estate's annual letting value until the civil suit for partition is decided.

The High Court held that the 'bright line test' has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not prescribed. It disagreed with the Revenue's submission that AMP expenses should be treated as NIL or only the expressly paid amount, stating that segregating bundled transactions requires careful examination and pragmatic approach, including set-offs.

The ITAT correctly reasoned that penalty proceedings require a higher threshold of proof, and the AO did not provide sufficient material to disprove the assessee's contentions regarding the sale price. The purchase price of shares had not been disputed in earlier assessment years.

The High Court held that the disallowance of interest on advances made for booking showroom space to a sister concern was not justified, citing commercial expediency. However, the court remanded the issue regarding the acceptance of a revised income for AY 2008-09 back to the ITAT for fresh examination.

The Delhi High Court held that the tax-exempt income of an assessee eligible under Section 10B cannot be set off against losses from tax-liable income. The court followed its earlier decision in Tei Technologies (supra).

The High Court held that the disallowance of interest on advances made for booking showroom space to a sister concern was not justified, citing commercial expediency. However, the court remanded the issue regarding the acceptance of a revised income for AY 2008-09 back to the ITAT for fresh examination.

The High Court held that the disallowance of interest on advances made for booking showroom space to a sister concern was not justified, citing commercial expediency. However, the court remanded the issue regarding the acceptance of a revised income for AY 2008-09 back to the ITAT for fresh examination.

The High Court held that the disallowance of interest on advances made for booking showroom space to a sister concern was not justified, citing commercial expediency. However, the court remanded the issue regarding the acceptance of a revised income for AY 2008-09 back to the ITAT for fresh examination.

The High Court held that the disallowance of interest on advances made for booking showroom space to a sister concern was not justified, citing commercial expediency. However, the court remanded the issue regarding the acceptance of a revised income for AY 2008-09 back to the ITAT for fresh examination.

The High Court held that the disallowance of interest on advances made for booking showroom space to a sister concern was not justified, citing commercial expediency. However, the court remanded the issue regarding the acceptance of a revised income for AY 2008-09 back to the ITAT for fresh examination.

The High Court held that the disallowance of interest on advances made for booking showroom space to a sister concern was not justified, citing commercial expediency. However, the court remanded the issue regarding the acceptance of a revised income for AY 2008-09 back to the ITAT for fresh examination.