Delhi High Court Judgments — 2016

The tribunal found that Dr. Jain did not fulfill the condition of arranging funds and thus the share allotment was not justified. However, the tribunal directed a refund of amounts paid by Dr. Jain with interest, but corrected an error in the calculation of compound interest.

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

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding on the involvement and negligence of the car driver. However, it modified the compensation by including certain allowances and factoring in future prospects, increasing the total award.

The High Court found no error in the ITAT recalling its order to adjudicate the missed additional ground. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.

The Tribunal ruled that the STO's invocation of powers under Section 24 for reassessment was unwarranted, as there was no new material to justify it beyond existing documents. The STO's opinion was based on the assessee paying a lower tax rate.

The Delhi High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, subject to all just exceptions. Subsequently, the Court dismissed the appeal. The reasoning for dismissal was that, in view of the Court's previous order dated 28th July, 2015 in ITA No. 509 of 2015 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Aakash Arogya Mandir Pvt. Ltd.), no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the High Court on a similar issue establishes that no substantial question of law arises, subsequent appeals on the same grounds will also be dismissed on that basis. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of no substantial question of law.

The High Court clarified that any tax liability arising from the settlement shall be subject to a previous Company Law Board order and Section 115QA of the Income Tax Act, payable by the legally liable party. The court also issued notices to directors regarding disputed signatures.

The High Court held that the tenant failed to raise any triable issue with substantive material to rebut the landlord's bona fide need. The court found no error in the Rent Controller's assessment and reiterated that leave to defend should not be granted on mere assertion.

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding the reasons insufficient. The Court also dismissed the appeal itself on grounds of extraordinary delay and lack of substantial question of law.

The High Court allowed the application and disposed of the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders and lifting the attachment on the appellant's bank account. The settlement agreement between the parties was recognized.

The High Court directed that the issue of whether the decretal amount is a capital receipt (and thus not exigible to income tax) shall be decided by the learned single judge. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The tribunal held that the interest earned on funds temporarily placed in fixed deposits, which were inextricably linked to the setting up of the power project, constituted a capital receipt. This receipt was to be set off against pre-operative expenses.

The High Court held that the ITAT order was legally sound, as the amendments to Section 50C were prospective and the transaction predated the effective date. Therefore, Section 50C was not applicable to the sale.

The High Court held that Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) is applicable for computing the net worth under Section 50B, even in cases of slump sale of the entire block of assets. Depreciation allowable but not claimed cannot be deducted for calculating the written down value.

The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to raise all pleas before the learned ARC at the stage of considering the application for leave to defend.

The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court's reasoning was based on its prior order dated 8th July 2014 in ITA No. 327 of 2014 (Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Dimension Apparels Pvt. Ltd.). In that precedent, the Court had determined that when an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not involve a substantial question of law, it should be dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals to the High Court under Section 260A are limited to substantial questions of law, and if such questions are absent, the appeal lacks merit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. No issues were left undecided.

The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, disposing of the application for condonation of delay. Subsequently, in view of its own decision dated 27th July 2015 in ITA No. 510 of 2015 [Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) v. Aakash Arogya Mandir Pvt. Ltd.], the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning for dismissing the appeal is based on the precedent set in the Aakash Arogya Mandir Pvt. Ltd. case, implying that the issue in the present appeal was covered by that earlier ruling. The specific issue decided in the precedent case and its ratio decidendi are not detailed in this judgment. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Court dismissed the appeals, primarily due to the excessive delay in re-filing. Even on merits, the Court found no substantial question of law to be framed, leaving the questions open for future consideration.

The Court dismissed the appeals, primarily due to the excessive delay in re-filing. Even on merits, the Court found no substantial question of law to be framed, leaving the questions open for future consideration.