Delhi High Court Judgments — 2016

The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty as the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that taxes would be paid by the Ministry of Tourism as per the agreement. The appended notes to the returns also indicated no intent to conceal.

The tribunal held that IHCL has no inherent right to a renewal of the license. Any renewal must be subject to fair competition, preferably through an auction, to secure the maximum revenue for NDMC.

The tribunal correctly apportioned liability equally between the insurers of both vehicles. However, the compensation for the functional disability of one claimant was found to be over-assessed and was reduced.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay (CM Nos.989-991/2016) and consequently dismissed the appeals (ITA 67/2016 and ITA 68/2016). The Court found the explanation for the delay of over two years and nine months to be wholly unacceptable. The Court reasoned that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was provided for adaptation. Furthermore, the Court had made provisions such as scanning machines at the filing counter to assist the bar. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded to condone such an extraordinary delay.

The High Court held that a wife's right to residence is primarily against her husband, not her in-laws, especially when relations are strained and there are pending litigations. The court found no substantial question of law to entertain the second appeal.

The High Court found no substantial question of law and upheld the ITAT's decision. The court was not persuaded that the factual findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT were perverse.

The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty as the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that taxes would be paid by the Ministry of Tourism as per the agreement. The appended notes to the returns also indicated no intent to conceal.

The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty as the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that taxes would be paid by the Ministry of Tourism as per the agreement. The appended notes to the returns also indicated no intent to conceal.

The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty as the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that taxes would be paid by the Ministry of Tourism as per the agreement. The appended notes to the returns also indicated no intent to conceal.

The tribunal held that the plaint lacked actionable pleadings and did not disclose a cause of action, particularly regarding the claim of ancestral property and HUF status. The proposed amendment also did not cure this deficiency.

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision that the wife was not entitled to maintenance due to her own income. However, it enhanced the maintenance for the daughter to Rs. 20,000 per month and directed it to be paid from the date of the application.

The tribunal found that the Arbitrator's reasoning for discrediting the testimony of witnesses supporting the deed was plausible. The court agreed with the Arbitrator's assessment of the evidence regarding the deed and other family business dealings.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand over various assessment years violated the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The Tribunal erred in disallowing the assessee's claim for licence fee and interest on arrears. The High Court held that the revenue's inconsistent stand across assessment years, as per the rule of consistency, meant the assessee's claim should be allowed.

The High Court held that the ITAT and CIT(A) did not err in deleting the addition as the liability for interest crystallized only upon the one-time settlement. The court also refused to allow the Revenue to raise a new issue regarding Section 43-B for the first time.

The High Court set aside the lower court's judgment, stating that triable issues of fact existed regarding copyright infringement. The court restored the suit for trial, allowing parties to present expert testimony.

The tribunal decided that the respondent's claims were not barred by limitation. The court agreed, finding that the petitioner's denial of claims on June 15, 2012, was the trigger point for the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that payments made by the assessee for the purchase of software as a product, for resale, do not constitute royalty. The High Court concurred, distinguishing between acquiring the right to use software and purchasing software as a product.

The High Court condoned the delay of 53 days in re-filing the appeal. However, in view of a previous decision of the same Court dated 27th July 2015 in ITA No. 510 of 2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Aakash Arogya Mandir Pvt. Ltd.), the present appeal was dismissed. The specific reasoning for the dismissal, beyond relying on the precedent, is not detailed in this short order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim of ignorance of liability was probable and there was no clear evidence of deliberate inaction, the authorities' findings on suppression of facts could not be disturbed. However, limited relief was granted by modifying the penalty to 25% of the total tax due, provided the balance tax, interest, and reduced penalty were paid within the stipulated period.

The tribunal held that depreciation on de-capitalized assets should continue to be allowed on the written down value, as the profit from subsequent sale is offered to tax. The change in accounting policy for revenue recognition was also accepted as bona fide and consistent with accounting standards.

The High Court set aside the Official Liquidator's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration of the Income Tax Department's claim. The court directed the Official Liquidator to reconsider the claim de novo.

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Official Liquidator. The court remitted the matter back to the Official Liquidator for a fresh consideration of the Income Tax Department's claim.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order deleting the disallowance. The Commissioner had found that the agreements were executed in the normal course of business and there was no evidence of diversion of interest-bearing funds to sister concerns.

The High Court directed the Family Court to re-assess the income-earning capabilities of both parties and the adequacy of the maintenance amount. The maintenance order was made effective from the date the application was moved, not the date of the order.

The ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction under Section 80IC despite a minor technical delay in filing the return. The High Court found the ITAT's view not perverse and declined to frame the question of law.

The High Court noted that the Revenue was not pressing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as not pressed.

The Court found that the petitioners had established a strong prima facie case for the amounts paid for shares that were not allotted, citing Section 42 of the Companies Act and Section 65 of the Contract Act. However, to avoid potential severe injury to the company's operations, the deposit amount was modified.