Delhi High Court Judgments — 2018

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal had followed established High Court rulings in the cases of 'Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated', 'Director of Income Tax, International Taxation vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. and Ors.', and 'Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2 vs. ZTE Corporation'. Since the Tribunal's decision was based on these binding precedents from the High Court, the Court found the Revenue's appeal to be untenable. The reasoning is that when a lower appellate authority (ITAT) correctly applies the decisions of a higher court (High Court), no substantial question of law arises for further appeal to the High Court. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Court noted that the ITAT had followed its own previous decisions in cases such as 'Director of Income Tax vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated', 'Director of Income Tax, International Taxation vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. and Ors.', and 'Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2 vs. ZTE Corporation'. Since the ITAT's order was based on these High Court rulings, the Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as untenable. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additional amount of ₹3.22 crores was paid to the company as an unsecured loan, not directly to the assessee for the share transfer. Therefore, the AO's addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the additional amount of ₹3.22 crores was paid to the company as an unsecured loan, not directly to the assessee for the share transfer. Therefore, the AO's addition was unjustified.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. This conclusion is based on the fact that the issues pressed by the Revenue, namely the taxability of salary paid to expatriate employees and the applicability of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were already covered by a previous common order of the same High Court for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, concerning the same assessee. The ratio decidendi is that if the issues raised in an appeal have been conclusively decided by a higher court in a prior common order for the same assessee and assessment years, then no substantial question of law arises for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal and the High Court held that the hospital's operation on commercial lines and generation of profits made it liable for bonus payments. Exemption under the Income Tax Act for charitable purposes did not automatically grant exemption from the Payment of Bonus Act.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the appeal. Regarding the first issue, concerning the interest income earned by the assessee on surplus funds, the Court relied on its previous decision in NTPC SAIL Power Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (210 Taxmann 358 (Del.)), which was found to be conclusive and against the Revenue. This implies the interest income was treated in a manner favorable to the assessee, likely as business income or otherwise not as income from other sources as contended by the Revenue. For the second issue, regarding the disallowance of the provision for retirement benefits, the Court referred to its judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Insilco Ltd. (197 Taxman 55 (Del.)), which ruled against the assessee, meaning the provision for retirement benefits was held to be deductible under Section 37. The Court found that the issues were covered by existing precedents, thus not giving rise to a substantial question of law. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

The High Court held that balconies should not be counted towards the 1000 sq. ft. limit for relief prior to April 1, 2005. It also affirmed that the actual commencement of construction, not the date of approval, is determinative for the project's start date.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had incorrectly computed the injured's income and functional disability. The court reassessed the income based on Income Tax Returns, applied future prospects, and corrected the functional disability assessment.

The High Court held that the findings of the ITAT were essentially on facts. The Court was of the opinion that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the court found no substantial question of law to decide.

The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal as not pressed. This decision was based on a circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section). This circular fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 15,45,000/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal was considered not pressed. No finding was given on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court agreed with the lower appellate authorities that the assessee is not required to establish the source of the source of funds received, but rather only to demonstrate the genuineness of the receipt from an identified party. This reasoning is supported by the High Court's own prior judgments, including the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals for later years in similar cases involving the same assessee (ITA Nos. 527 and 529/2018). The Court also noted that the ITAT's deletion was consistent with the principle laid down in CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573, regarding assessments under Section 153A where no fresh material is recovered. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The tribunal held that a security cheque issued in a commercial transaction does not constitute entrustment of property in a criminal sense. Therefore, the basic requirements for invoking Section 409 IPC were lacking.

The High Court held that the findings of the ITAT and CIT(A) were intensely fact-dependent. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order. The appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were therefore dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the expenses were indeed prior period expenses or crystallized liabilities, as it found no substantial question of law to examine. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

The High Court found that the lower appellate authorities erred by relying on previous assessment year decisions without considering the new agreement entered into by the assessee in 2005. The issue was remitted back to the ITAT for reconsideration.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the surrender of tenancy by one co-tenant binds the other, especially in the absence of a contrary agreement. It also noted that the appellant's claim for possession was not justified due to subsequent events and the impracticality of joint use.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to hear the cases afresh and render findings in light of DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The court applied the principles laid down in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The court applied the principles laid down in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The court applied the principles laid down in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The court applied the principles laid down in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified as no incriminating material was found during the search. The court applied the principles laid down in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings considering the DTAA and other relevant provisions of the Act.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the issues to the file of the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to re-hear the cases and pass fresh findings in accordance with law, considering DTAA provisions.