Delhi High Court Judgments — 2015

The Delhi High Court decided these appeals based on the findings in a related case. The specific outcome for each appeal is not detailed here but is linked to the referenced judgment.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015 may be referred to. This implies the current appeals would follow that precedent.

The Delhi High Court referred to a decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior judgment.

The Delhi High Court referred to its decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior judgment.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015 may be referred to. This implies the current appeals are decided based on that prior ruling.

The High Court referred to a previous decision for the detailed judgment. The specific outcome of these appeals is not detailed in the provided text.

The High Court decided to follow its previous judgment in ITA No. 119/2015. The specific outcome of that judgment, which applies here, is not detailed in the provided text.

The High Court referred to a decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior judgment.

The High Court decided these appeals based on the findings in a prior related case. The specific outcome for these appeals is not detailed in the provided text, but it implies a resolution based on the referenced judgment.

The High Court decided these appeals based on the findings in a prior related case. The specific outcome for these appeals is not detailed in the provided text, but it implies a resolution based on the referenced judgment.

The High Court referred to a previous decision for the detailed judgment. The specific outcome of these appeals is not detailed in the provided text.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015 may be referred to. This implies the current appeals are decided based on that prior ruling.

The High Court referred to a decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior judgment.

The Delhi High Court referred to its decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior judgment.

The High Court decided to follow its previous judgment in ITA No. 119/2015. The specific outcome of that judgment, which applies here, is not detailed in the provided text.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the plain words of Section 151(2) unambiguously designate the Joint Commissioner as the competent authority for sanctioning re-assessment notices in cases other than those specified in Section 151(1), especially when issued after four years. The court emphasized that statutory mandates for specific procedures must be followed strictly.

The Delhi High Court referred to a decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior judgment.

The Delhi High Court decided these appeals based on the findings in a related case. The specific outcome for each appeal is not detailed here but is linked to the referenced judgment.

The High Court decided to follow its previous decision in ITA No. 119/2015. The specific outcome of that decision is not detailed in this excerpt.

The High Court directed that for the detailed judgment, reference should be made to the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015. This implies the current appeals were decided based on that prior ruling.

The High Court referred to a previous decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior ruling.

The High Court referred to its earlier decision in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. The specific outcome for these appeals is not detailed in this excerpt.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, reference should be made to the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015. This implies the current judgment is likely a consequential order or a set of similar appeals decided based on a precedent.

The High Court referred to a decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment in these connected appeals.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015 may be referred to. This implies the current appeals would follow the outcome of that primary decision.

The High Court referred to a previous decision in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior ruling.

The High Court, by referring to a previous judgment, likely upheld or dismissed the appeals based on the principles established in that earlier decision. The specific outcome for each appeal would depend on the facts and legal arguments addressed in the referred judgment.

The Delhi High Court referred to its decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment in these connected appeals.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, reference should be made to a decision dated February 27, 2015, in ITA No. 119/2015. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the principles laid down in that prior judgment.

The High Court referred to a previous decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015 for the detailed judgment. This implies the current appeals were decided based on that precedent.

The High Court decided to follow its previous judgment in ITA No. 119/2015. The specific outcome of that judgment, which would apply to these appeals, is not detailed in the provided text.

The High Court decided to follow its previous judgment in ITA No. 119/2015. The specific outcome for these consolidated appeals is not detailed in this excerpt.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, reference should be made to the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015. This implies the current appeals follow the same reasoning.

The High Court decided to refer to a previous judgment for the detailed reasoning of the decision. This implies the current judgment is a consequence or continuation of that prior ruling.

The High Court directed that for the detailed judgment, reference should be made to the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015. This implies the current appeals were decided based on the precedent set in that case.

The High Court directed that for detailed judgment, the decision dated 27.02.2015 in ITA No. 119/2015 may be referred to. This implies the current appeals would follow that precedent.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the ITAT was correct in its findings. The supply of software, when an integral part of the hardware and not independently usable, is considered a supply of goods, not royalty.

The High Court held that interest under Section 244A is not payable on excess self-assessment tax paid voluntarily, unless it is pursuant to a demand by the Revenue or due to an error by the Revenue. The assessee's claim for interest was not sustained.

The High Court held that the AO and ITAT failed to follow the mandate of Section 14A(2) by not examining the assessee's claim for disallowance and not scrutinizing the accounts. The disallowance also exceeded the tax-exempt income, which is impermissible.

The tribunal correctly held the bus driver negligent and the insurer liable for compensation. The computation of compensation, including the inclusion of sons as dependents and the inclusion of allowances in salary, was also upheld.

The High Court held that suspicion alone cannot be the basis for disallowance under Section 68. Once the assessee discharged the initial onus of proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, the burden shifted to the Revenue to prove otherwise, which it failed to do.

The ITAT held that a company cannot be excluded from comparables solely based on low turnover, especially when no turnover filter was applied initially. The functional profile similarity should be the primary criterion for comparability.

The High Court found that the restricted remand to the AO was not justified. It directed that the matter be remitted to the DRP for reconsideration of the issues that were initially referred to it, to be dealt with in a reasoned order.

The ITAT correctly held that the additions made by the AO were not warranted. The High Court found no substantial question of law, upholding the ITAT's decision that the settlement was genuine and the AO's suspicion of undervaluation was not based on objective material.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a DVO's report without any other material to suspect undervaluation or concealment. The AO's action was considered outside the purview of block assessment provisions.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a DVO's report without any other material to suspect undervaluation or concealment. The AO's action was considered outside the purview of block assessment provisions.

The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) order invalidating the notice under Section 158BD was not sustainable. The Court found that the Revenue was entitled to issue the notice to ascertain the facts regarding the amount received.

The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to a higher depreciation rate on motor vehicles given on lease, as these were considered to be 'hire'. However, the court ruled against the assessee on the issue of reserves, stating they were below-the-line allocations and not deductible expenses.

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeals, following its previous reasoning in similar cases. The court found no material to support the revenue's contentions regarding loans and interest payments.

The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to a higher depreciation rate on motor vehicles given on lease, as these were considered to be 'hire'. However, the court ruled against the assessee on the issue of reserves, stating they were below-the-line allocations and not deductible expenses.