Delhi High Court Judgments — 2016

The High Court refused to modify its previous order, stating that granting clarification would amount to re-writing the judgment. However, it clarified that the TPO should first apply the CUP method and then, if difficulties arise, use the most appropriate method.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the application for condonation of delay (CM APPL No. 5586/2016) filed by the Revenue. The Court found the explanation provided for the 1210-day delay in re-filing the appeal to be unsatisfactory. The Court observed that it was improbable that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals, allowing over three years to pass without re-filing. The Court highlighted that the Department has a dedicated cell in the High Court supervised by a Deputy CIT, who should be monitoring the progress of appeals. Consequently, as the delay was not condoned, the appeal itself was dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the substantive appeal was decided.

The Tribunal dispensed with the requirement of convening meetings of shareholders and creditors for all three companies. This was based on the fact that all relevant parties provided their written consents or no objections to the proposed scheme.

The High Court found the Department's explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, stating it was improbable that no one in the Department monitored the appeal's progress. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed.

The High Court found that the ITAT had not adequately considered the assessee's contentions regarding the functional and risk profile dissimilarities of the comparables chosen. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the ITAT for fresh consideration.

The High Court found that the ITAT had not adequately considered the assessee's contentions regarding the functional and risk profile dissimilarities of the comparables chosen. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the ITAT for fresh consideration.

The High Court held that the tax authorities were justified in scrutinizing the transaction and adopting the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The court found that the arrangements, when viewed in totality, differed from those an independent enterprise would adopt.

The ITAT held that the Revenue's appeal was defective because it did not challenge the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO lacked jurisdiction. The High Court found no error in the ITAT's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the notices under Section 142(1) were time-barred had attained finality as the Revenue did not challenge it. Consequently, the assessment order based on these invalid notices was bad in law.

The High Court found the department's excuse for the delay, related to practice directions for soft copies, unacceptable given the long period. The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

The High Court held that the ITAT's order dated 30th July 2015 was passed without considering a crucial fact raised by the Revenue, namely, that the appeal before the ITAT fell under the exception provided in paragraph 8(c) of Instruction No. 5 of 2014, due to an accepted Revenue Audit objection. Since the appeal before the ITAT was not heard on its merits, the High Court considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The High Court restored the appeal (ITA No. 3641/Del/2013) to the file of the ITAT for adjudication on merits. The ITAT was directed to proceed with the appeal only after proper service of notice upon the Assessee. No finding was given on the merits of the original appeal before the ITAT.

The High Court upheld the convictions for most appellants but modified the sentences in some cases. Several appeals were dismissed, while others were disposed of with modified sentences, and some appellants were ordered to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.

The High Court held that the Assessees were resident Indian companies and that the control and management of their affairs were indeed in Delhi. The court found that the ITAT had erred in its conclusions regarding jurisdiction, service of notices, and the taxability of income.

The High Court held that the Assessees were resident Indian companies and that the control and management of their affairs were indeed in Delhi. The court found that the ITAT had erred in its conclusions regarding jurisdiction, service of notices, and the taxability of income.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Court's reasoning appears to be based on the fact that the appeals themselves were defective, as indicated by the information provided regarding the appeals for earlier assessment years (2003-04 and 2004-05). The Court did not delve into the merits of any specific issue that might have been decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ratio decidendi is that if no substantial question of law arises, the appeal cannot be entertained. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

The High Court condoned the delays in filing the appeals for the reasons stated in the applications. On the substantive issue, the Court held that it was not in dispute that the Assessee was included in the Table II category shareholders in the SVP Group of cases. Consequently, the Court found that these appeals were covered by its earlier decision dated 3rd December, 2015, in ITA No. 422/2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.). The reasoning was that the present appeals involved the same factual matrix and legal issue concerning the classification of shareholders as decided in the precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals concerning Table II category shareholders in the SVP Group of cases are bound by the High Court's prior ruling on the matter. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

The High Court held that the assessee companies were resident Indian companies and their income earned in India prior to April 1, 1990, was taxable. It found that the control and management of the companies were indeed situated in Delhi.

The High Court held that the assessee companies were resident Indian companies and their income earned in India prior to April 1, 1990, was taxable. It found that the control and management of the companies were indeed situated in Delhi.

The High Court held that the assessee companies were resident Indian companies and their income earned in India prior to April 1, 1990, was taxable. It found that the control and management of the companies were indeed situated in Delhi.

The High Court condoned the delays in filing the appeals for the reasons stated in the applications. On the substantive issue, the Court held that it was not in dispute that the Assessee was included in the Table II category shareholders in the SVP Group of cases. Consequently, the Court found that these appeals were covered by its earlier decision dated 3rd December, 2015, in ITA No. 422/2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.). The reasoning was that the present appeals involved the same factual matrix and legal issue concerning the classification of shareholders as decided in the precedent case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals concerning Table II category shareholders in the SVP Group of cases are bound by the High Court's prior ruling on the matter. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

The High Court held that the assessee companies were resident Indian companies and their income earned in India prior to April 1, 1990, was taxable. It found that the control and management of the companies were indeed situated in Delhi.

The High Court held that if the property, derived from scheduled offences, continues to be possessed and used even after the PMLA came into force, it constitutes a continuing offence of money laundering. Therefore, such property can be attached under Section 5(1) of the PMLA.

The High Court held that the Assessees were resident Indian companies and that the control and management of their affairs were indeed in Delhi. The court found that the ITAT had erred in its conclusions regarding jurisdiction, service of notices, and the taxability of income.

The High Court held that the Assessees were resident Indian companies and that the control and management of their affairs were indeed in Delhi. The court found that the ITAT had erred in its conclusions regarding jurisdiction, service of notices, and the taxability of income.

The High Court held that the Assessees were resident Indian companies and that the control and management of their affairs were indeed in Delhi. The court found that the ITAT had erred in its conclusions regarding jurisdiction, service of notices, and the taxability of income.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. This decision is based on the Court's prior order dated September 28, 2015, in ITA No. 682/2015, which dealt with similar questions for Assessment Year 2006-07. The Court noted that the Revenue's appeals for earlier years (2003-04 and 2004-05) were lying in defect. By extension, and without re-examining the merits of the ITAT's orders for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09, the High Court found no grounds to interfere. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CUP method, based on market prices from stock or commodity exchanges, was valid. The High Court found no perversity or legal infirmity in the Tribunal's reasoning.

The tribunal upheld the Family Court's decision regarding the appellant's income, considering his substantial unexplained cash deposits and the disparity in financial status. The appellant was directed to pay interim maintenance to his wife.

The High Court held that the ITSC order was flawed as it failed to consider a critical letter from the Commissioner of Income Tax. This letter contained important information regarding share capital and an error in the Section 80IC deduction calculation.

The Tribunal upheld the addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lenders, especially given disproportionately large loans and lack of interest payments.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no substantial question of law. The Court noted that the ITAT's decision relied on a previous binding judgment of the High Court, and a CBDT circular cannot override a court decision.

The High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing, stating that the department should have a system to track appeals. The court also noted that the e-filing practice directions were implemented with sufficient notice and support.

The tribunal held that a civil suit is not maintainable to challenge a compromise deed that has become part of judicial proceedings. The challenge to such a compromise must be made before the court that recorded it.

The High Court upheld the convictions for most appellants but modified the sentences in some cases. Several appeals were dismissed, while others were disposed of with modified sentences, and some appellants were ordered to surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.

The High Court found that the ITAT's order was unsustainable in law, partly due to potential violations of natural justice and the ITAT considering grounds extraneous to the show-cause notice. The court decided to set aside the ITAT's order and restore the appeal for a fresh hearing.

The High Court found the department's explanation for the delay unconvincing. The court noted the department's responsibility to track appeals and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

The High Court found the department's explanation for the delay unconvincing and unacceptable. It noted the lack of follow-up by the department and the supervision failure by the High Court cell.

The Tribunal held that the respondent did not have a Permanent Establishment in India. The activities of the Indian agents were considered auxiliary and did not meet the criteria for a Fixed Place PE or a Dependent Agent PE under the India-US DTAA.

The High Court found the department's explanation for the delay unconvincing. It noted the existence of a dedicated cell to track appeals and dismissed the condonation application.

The High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing and insufficient. The court stated that the department should have followed up on the filing of appeals and not allowed such a significant lapse of time.

The High Court of Delhi held that there was no reason to keep the appeal pending. Consequently, the appeal and the associated applications (CM No. 4295/2011 for condonation of delay and CM No. 4296/2011 for condonation of delay in re-filing) were dismissed for non-prosecution. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal, when not prosecuted by the appellant, can be dismissed by the court. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original assessment or the ITAT order was decided.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C is rebuttable and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to rebut it. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries despite the assessee's efforts to provide information.

The High Court found the department's explanation for the delay unconvincing. It was held that the department should have a system to track appeals and not allow such a significant delay.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C is rebuttable and the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to rebut it. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiries despite the assessee's efforts to provide information.