Delhi High Court Judgments — 2020

The High Court held that the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were established as the investor company was part of a group with substantial returned income. Therefore, there was no reason to doubt the transaction.

The High Court held that the ITAT should have decided the issue of concession regarding PE existence itself, rather than remanding it to the DRP. The Tribunal's power of remand was considered unwarranted for such a factual matter.

The High Court held that while profits of life insurance business are computed under Section 44 read with the First Schedule, the AO is not precluded from examining the declared profits and is not bound to accept the assessee's figures without scrutiny.

The High Court held that the Tribunal wrongly discredited the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's wife and that the accident's involvement and rash/negligent driving were duly established. The matter was remanded for determination of compensation under Section 166.

The High Court held that the tax effect in these appeals was below the stipulated monetary limit. Consequently, in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 8th August, 2019, the appeals were treated as not pressed. The court's reasoning was based on the explicit instruction within the circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling within the monetary limits specified by the CBDT for non-prosecution should be disposed of accordingly, without delving into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as not pressed.

The High Court held that the provision for salary was a contingent liability not deductible in the relevant year. However, it found that the revenue from loan fees had not accrued with certainty at the time of signing the loan agreement, and the change in accounting policy was revenue neutral.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The Court observed that the entire discussion in the impugned ITAT order proceeded on the facts of the case. Given the consistent findings of fact returned by the lower authorities (Assessing Officer, CIT(Appeals), and ITAT), the High Court found no basis to interfere. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The specific additions deleted by the CIT(Appeals) and upheld by the ITAT were not detailed, nor was the reasoning for those deletions elaborated upon in the High Court's order.

The Tribunal held that since no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of the search, any additions should have been based on seized material. As no such material was produced or shown, the additions were directed to be deleted.

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, holding that the factual basis presented in the appeals was contrary to the case argued before the lower authorities. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

The High Court decided to dispose of the present appeals (ITA 35/2020 and ITA 37/2020) in terms of its previous order dated 08.01.2020 passed in ITA No. 02/2020. This implies that the High Court found the reasoning and decision in the earlier order to be applicable to the present appeals. The judgment does not provide details of the specific issues decided in ITA No. 02/2020 or the reasoning behind that decision. Therefore, the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for the present appeals are not explicitly stated in this order. The operative directions would be to follow the order dated 08.01.2020. No issue was expressly left undecided; rather, the appeals were disposed of based on a prior ruling.

The High Court decided to dispose of the present appeals (ITA 35/2020 and ITA 37/2020) in terms of its previous order dated 08.01.2020 passed in ITA No. 02/2020. This implies that the High Court found the reasoning and decision in the earlier order to be applicable to the present appeals. The judgment does not provide details of the specific issues decided in ITA No. 02/2020 or the reasoning behind that decision. Therefore, the findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for the present appeals are not explicitly stated in this order. The operative directions would be to follow the order dated 08.01.2020. No issue was expressly left undecided; rather, the appeals were disposed of based on a prior ruling.

The High Court held that the present appeal has become infructuous because the issue raised by the Revenue has already been decided in favour of the Assessee by this Court in its earlier decision in ITA No. 397/2009, dated 07.05.2017. The Court noted that the sole question in the present appeal pertains to the stage at which customs duty drawback accrues as income, which was definitively addressed in the prior judgment. Since the Revenue's counsel did not dispute this position, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court held that the dominant purpose of the trust was charitable, aiming to provide benefits to the general public in the field of insurance and health facilities. Ancillary benefits to TPA members do not disqualify the institution from being charitable.

The High Court directed the CIT(A) to consider all grounds raised by the assessee in their statutory appeals, excluding issues already concluded by the ITAT's impugned decision.

The High Court held that the issues raised were conclusively settled by the Supreme Court's judgment and subsequent review/curative petitions, rendering further adjudication impermissible. The Union of India's argument of the issues passing sub silentio was rejected.

The Tribunal held that all procedural requirements for voluntary winding up and dissolution were met. Consequently, the company was ordered to be dissolved from the date of filing the petition.

The Tribunal held that all necessary compliances under the Companies Act, 1956, for the voluntary winding up of the company have been made. The affairs of the company were not conducted prejudicially, and therefore, the company could be dissolved.

The High Court found that the appellant's arguments regarding his initial witness status and the lack of new incriminating material in the supplementary chargesheet were not persuasive. The court noted that previous judicial pronouncements had already established prima facie involvement.

The High Court held that the PCIT's subsequent order, while brief, was not bereft of reasons and reflected an application of mind based on CBDT circulars and the assessee's financial condition. Therefore, there was no wilful disobedience of the court's previous order.