Delhi High Court Judgments — 2018

The High Court held that the conclusion of the CESTAT denying CENVAT credit on the premise that towers erected result in immovable property was erroneous and contrary to established judicial precedent, specifically citing Solid and Correct Engineering. The Court reasoned that towers are received in CKD condition and erected at site, and the emergence of an immovable structure at an intermediate stage is of no consequence if the goods are ultimately used for providing output services. The entitlement to CENVAT credit is to be determined at the time of receipt of goods. If the received goods qualify as inputs or capital goods, their subsequent fixation to the earth does not render them non-excisable when received. The Court further noted that the ability to relocate towers and shelters implies they are not immovable property, thus distinguishing the case from Bharti Airtel. Consequently, all questions of law were answered in favour of the assessees. The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The High Court held that the petitioner's claim of improper service of notice under Section 148 was insubstantial and unmerited. The court noted that the petitioner admitted in his revision petition to receiving the reassessment order and demand notice for subsequent assessment years, establishing that he was functioning at the address to which notices were sent. The court found that the petitioner's argument regarding the defect in affixture of the notice was hollow, especially since he admitted to receiving the reassessment order and did not appeal against it within the limitation period. The court concluded that the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the revision petition as there was no jurisdictional error. The court did not explicitly decide on the issue of whether proceedings should have been under Section 153C, as the primary focus was on the validity of service of notice and the petitioner's admission of receiving the reassessment order. The petition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred for social development activities, aligned with the assessee's stated objectives, qualified for deduction under Section 37. The assets created belonged to the villagers and were not capital assets in the hands of the assessee.

The High Court held that the Revenue's appeal was identical to a previous appeal for AY 2010-11, which was dismissed. The change in tax rates in Oman was found to be inconsequential as the Assessing Officer had already considered the reduced rate.

The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's order, finding that a significant portion of the trade creditors were genuine based on continuous dealings and payments made in subsequent years. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to lack of supporting documents and the factual findings of the lower authorities.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was contributorily negligent for allowing her unlicensed minor son to drive the vehicle. The court also found the compensation assessment to be fair and reasonable.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for determination in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the issue was purely factual and had been examined at four levels of litigation. The determination of the value of construction was based on facts, and therefore, the Court found itself unable to identify any substantial question of law that warranted its consideration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal. The Court noted that the issue regarding the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered against the Revenue by its own prior judgment in 'Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc.' (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Revenue acknowledged this and further stated that a Special Leave Petition against the 'GE Packaged Power Inc.' decision was pending before the Supreme Court, and the ruling of the Supreme Court would apply to the present appeal. Consequently, the High Court directed that the appeal be disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's future ruling. The Court also provided liberty to the parties to file an application in the appeal after the Supreme Court's decision if any difficulty arose. The appeal was treated as disposed of for registry purposes.

The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in ITA No. 661/2018, 'The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (International Taxation) vs. General Electric Power Systems INC.'. The Court noted that the question raised by the Revenue regarding the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered against them by the High Court's own judgment in 'Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc.' (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court further acknowledged that an appeal against this decision was pending before the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court's ruling would equally apply to the present appeal. The appeal was disposed of with the understanding that if any difficulty arose after the Supreme Court's decision, parties could file an application. The operative direction was to treat the appeal as disposed of.

The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal. The Court noted that the issue of levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was decided against the Revenue in the case of 'Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc.', (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court acknowledged that an appeal against this decision was pending before the Supreme Court and that the ruling of the Supreme Court would apply to the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the parties' agreement to follow the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court also stated that if any difficulty arose after the Supreme Court's decision, parties could file an application in the present appeal. The appeal was treated as disposed of for registry purposes.

The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the parties' agreement. The Court noted that the question raised by the Revenue concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered against them by the High Court's own judgment in 'Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc.' (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court was informed that an appeal against this decision was pending before the Supreme Court, and the ruling of the Supreme Court would apply to the present appeal. The Court recorded this understanding and disposed of the appeal. The operative direction was to treat the appeal as disposed of, with liberty to the parties to file an application if any difficulty arose after the Supreme Court's decision. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the pending Supreme Court decision.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court was not inclined to interfere with the ITAT's order. The ITAT had previously remanded the issue of an addition of Rs.21,98,33,603/- to the CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The High Court's decision implies that it found the ITAT's action of remand to be within its powers and not requiring interference on a substantial question of law. The Court also noted that the Assessee had expired and advised the legal representatives to request the CIT (Appeals) to expedite the proceedings, with the CIT (Appeals) endeavoring to dispose of the matter within three months if such a request was made. No specific issue was left undecided by the High Court.

The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal without answering the issue/question raised. The Court clarified that the issue has been left open. The Court further clarified that the appellant Revenue would be entitled to revive the present appeal in case the same is covered by an exception to Circular No. 3 of 2018. The decision is based on the Revenue's submission regarding the low tax effect and the applicability of the circular, rather than a determination of the substantive tax dispute.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in view of the accepted factual position that the assessee had not earned any exempt income in the assessment years in question. The Court relied on its own decision in ITA No. 725/2018, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi Vs. Mcclonald's India Private Limited. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issue was left undecided.

The High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the Revenue without examining the issues/questions raised. The Court recorded the statement made by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 50 Lacs and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal could be disposed of. The Court explicitly stated that the issues/questions raised were left open. Liberty was granted to the appellant/Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case the matter was covered by an exception to the circular. No finding was given on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal took the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue on record. It was stated that the tax effect in the present appeals is below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, therefore, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the appeals may be disposed of without answering the issues/questions raised. The High Court accordingly disposed of the appeals without examining the issues/questions raised on merits, leaving them open. The Revenue was clarified to be entitled to ask for revival of the appeals in case the matters are covered by an exception. No specific finding was given on the substantive issues of the appeals.

The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal without answering the substantial question of law. The court took on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the appeal was disposed of, leaving the issue/question open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case the matter is covered by an exception. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold specified in the relevant circular can be disposed of without deciding the substantial question of law, subject to the conditions mentioned in the circular and the court's discretion.

The High Court determined that the market value of the acquired land should be Rs. 2,07,500 per Bigha. This enhanced compensation was to be applied uniformly to all similarly acquired land in the four villages mentioned, including those who had not initially applied for enhanced compensation.

The High Court disposed of the appeals without examining the questions/issues raised. The Court took the statement of the learned counsel for the Revenue on record. The substantial questions of law were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeals if the matters are covered by an exception to Circular No. 3/2018. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as per the Revenue's request, with the aforementioned liberty.

The High Court disposed of the appeals without examining the questions/issues raised. The Court took the statement of the learned counsel for the Revenue on record. The substantial questions of law were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeals if the matters are covered by an exception to Circular No. 3/2018. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as per the Revenue's request, with the aforementioned liberty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Revenue had not objected to the admission of additional evidence. The High Court found it impossible to answer the re-framed question of law due to conflicting assertions about grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeals without examining or deciding the issues raised. This decision was based on the Revenue's statement that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lacs, aligning with Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal clarified that the issue/question was left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that if the appeal falls under an exception to the circular, the Revenue could file an application for revival. No specific findings were made on any substantive legal or factual matters, and no ratio decidendi for future citation was established on the merits of the case. The issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeals without examining or deciding the issues raised. This decision was based on the Revenue's statement that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lacs, aligning with Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal clarified that the issue/question was left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that if the appeal falls under an exception to the circular, the Revenue could file an application for revival. No specific findings were made on any substantive legal or factual matters, and no ratio decidendi for future citation was established on the merits of the case. The issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal for assessment year 2011-2012 were indeed covered by its earlier decision in ITA No. 808/2016, dated November 22, 2016. Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The specific findings or reasoning from the prior decision that covered these issues were not detailed in this judgment, nor were any operative directions issued beyond dismissing the appeal.

The tribunal's finding that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw driver was upheld. The court also found that the deceased's income was duly proved and the compensation awarded was just and reasonable.

The High Court noted that the matters were listed at the request of the counsel. Consequently, the court decided not to take up the appeals for hearing and directed them to remain on board.

The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Court took on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated July 11, 2018, the Revenue would not press the appeal. The Court clarified that the issue/question raised was left open and was not decided. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed, with the clarification that the issue remained undecided.

The High Court noted that the matters were not taken up for hearing at the request of the counsel. Consequently, the court ordered that the matters should remain on board for future consideration.

The High Court condoned the delay of 71 days in refiling the appeal, as it was not opposed by the Assessee. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in the present appeal was below Rs. 50 Lacs and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018, they were not pressing the appeal. The Court recorded this statement and disposed of the appeal. It was clarified that the issue raised in the appeal was left open and had not been decided on merits. Therefore, no finding was given on the substantive issue, and the appeal was disposed of without answering the question raised.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions and noting that the assessee had provided complete vendor details, deleted the ad hoc disallowance. The High Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings.

The Tribunal rightly held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was revenue in nature and not capital expenditure. The High Court also rejected the Revenue's contention regarding the assessment year for the expenditure.

The High Court has referred to a detailed judgment in GTR No. 2/1981 for the complete reasoning and decision. This excerpt does not provide the specific holdings of the court.

The High Court directed that the appeals be listed for further hearing on a specified date. No substantive decision on the merits of the appeals has been rendered in this excerpt.

The High Court has adjourned the hearing of these appeals. The matters are to be listed on a future date along with other related appeals.

The High Court has adjourned the hearing of these appeals. The matter is to be relisted on a future date along with other related appeals.