Delhi High Court Judgments — 2023

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to claim amortization of share issuance expenditure under Section 35D. It held that shares issued to QIBs could be treated as public subscription, relying on previous tribunal decisions.

The High Court noted that the petitioner initially failed to file a reply to the show-cause notice dated March 15, 2022, issued under Section 148A(b). However, subsequent replies were filed on March 6, 2023, and March 17, 2023. The court acknowledged that a show-cause notice dated March 11, 2023, proposing variation in income had been issued. The court directed the AO to consider the petitioner's replies dated March 6, 2023, and March 17, 2023. If the reply dated March 17, 2023, was not on record, the AO was to grant permission to the petitioner to place it on record and consider it. The court granted eight weeks to the AO to take a decision in the matter, commencing from the date of receipt of the judgment, as the period for completing the assessment was nearing its end (March 31, 2023). The petitioner agreed not to raise objections regarding limitation. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of in view of these directions.

The High Court condoned the delay of 255 days in re-filing the appeal by the Revenue. The Court noted that the assessee did not oppose the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was disposed of. The main appeal (ITA 184/2023) was then listed for further hearing on a subsequent date, May 18, 2023, as connected matters were also scheduled for that day. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal itself, as the proceedings were at the stage of listing after condonation of delay.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). The Tribunal reasoned that since the assessee's declared income was already higher than the addition, taxing it again would amount to double taxation. The AO had also not rejected the assessee's books of accounts.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court noted the submissions regarding the acceptance of additional evidence at various stages and directed parties to file written submissions.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It directed the parties to file written submissions and listed the appeals for further hearing.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court issued notice and directed the parties to file written submissions, indicating the appeals are to be heard on merits.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It also directed the parties to file written submissions and listed the matter for further hearing.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court also noted the submissions regarding the acceptance of additional evidence by the Tribunal and directed parties to file written submissions.

The High Court issued notice to the respondent assessee and listed the matter for further hearing. The court did not make a final determination on the merits of the appeal in this order.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated based on information already on record, especially when the AO committed an error in appreciating primary facts disclosed by the assessee. Such an error, if it leads to a jurisdictional flaw, cannot be cured by the assessee's concession.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench concerning the same assessee and a similar issue for an earlier assessment year.

The Delhi High Court noted that this issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the same court in previous judgments for other assessment years. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the Appellant/Revenue had failed to provide adequate or sufficient reasons to explain the significant delay of over 4 years and 100 days in filing the appeal. The Court noted that the reasons cited in the condonation application, such as a contrary decision by the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT, were insufficient, especially since the Delhi Bench of the ITAT had not followed the Bangalore Bench's decision due to jurisdictional High Court rulings. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation binds all, including government departments, and that decisions relied upon by the Revenue, such as Collector (LA) v. Katiji and State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, involved substantially shorter delays and were distinguishable from the present case. The Court explicitly stated that the merits of the appeal were not examined, as the dismissal was solely on the ground of limitation. The ratio decidendi is that inordinate and unexplained delays in filing appeals by government departments, even when citing conflicting tribunal decisions, will not be condoned if the explanation is not cogent and acceptable, referencing the principles laid down in Postmaster General And Others. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone the delay of over 4 years and 100 days. The Court found that the reasons provided by the Appellant/Revenue in their application for condonation of delay were insufficient and failed to adequately explain the immense delay. The Court noted that while the Revenue cited decisions like *Collector (LA) v. Katiji* and *State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani*, these cases involved significantly shorter delays (4 days and 109 days respectively) compared to the present case. The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's stance in *Postmaster General And Others. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another* and *State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Bherulal* that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government departments, and there is no separate statute of limitation for governmental appeals. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the matter on merits as the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as being time-barred, refusing to condone the delay of over 4 years and 100 days. The Court found that the Appellant/Revenue had not provided adequate or sufficient reasons to explain the delay. The reasons cited, including reliance on the Bangalore Bench's decision, were deemed insufficient, especially in light of the ITAT's reliance on jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Bherulal and Postmaster General cases has held that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the government, and there is no separate statute of limitation for governmental appeals. The Court also distinguished the cases relied upon by the Revenue (Katiji and Chandra Mani) as involving significantly shorter delays. The Court explicitly stated that the matter was not examined on merits as the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's appeals for earlier assessment years on the same issue were dismissed. Given this precedent and similar views from coordinate benches, the court found no substantial question of law.

The High Court noted that the identical issue had been decided in favour of the assessee in prior years. As no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the appeal was closed.

The Tribunal held that since the expense was incurred at the pre-operative stage and constituted work-in-progress, it could not be treated as income. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's reasoning and conclusion.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court decided to issue notice only on the second and third issues raised, as the first issue concerning Section 14A had been decided against the revenue in previous years.

The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. However, the court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration and closed the appeal.

The High Court held that the ITAT should have examined the additional ground, as it went to the root of the AO's jurisdiction. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-examination of whether the land was a capital asset based on the new material.

The High Court noted that the entire record placed before the statutory authorities was not filed. The Court directed the appellant to file the complete record in electronic form.

The Tribunal held that SDTs did not attract the transfer pricing regime due to the omission of Section 92BA(1) via the Finance Act, 2017. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to examine the transaction under Section 40A(2) of the Act.

The High Court held that communications issued without a mandatory DIN, as per the CBDT Circular, are invalid and treated as if never issued. The Tribunal's decision to not sustain the assessment order was upheld as it correctly applied the circular.

The High Court noted that the AO did not record specific findings regarding expenses attributable to exempt income. The AO proceeded on the basis of presumed administrative expenses and monitoring of investments.

The Tribunal's decision to allow the Section 80IC deduction was considered tenable as facts did not appear to have changed from the initial AY. The issue of trade discount was also decided in favor of the assessee.

The Delhi High Court condoned the significant delay of 245 days in the re-filing of the appeal by the Revenue. The Court also listed the present appeal to be heard along with a connected matter.

The High Court noted a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case which dismissed the revenue's appeal. The current appeal was closed with the understanding that parties would abide by any different conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in a pending SLP.

The High Court noted that the issue appears to be covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The revenue's counsel sought time to examine the facts in a similar prior case where the revenue had conceded the issue.

The High Court noted that the issue appears to be covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. The revenue's counsel sought time to examine the facts in a similar prior case where the revenue had conceded.

The High Court noted that the issue appears to be covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. The Revenue's counsel stated they would examine the facts in a similar prior case where the Revenue had conceded the issue.

The Tribunal held that expenses directly concerning the Indian business are not subject to Section 44C of the Income Tax Act. The High Court noted this finding of fact and adjourned the hearing for further clarification.

The High Court noted that the issue was likely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. The revenue's counsel sought time to examine the facts in a similar pending matter where the revenue had conceded the issue.

The High Court noted that the issue is likely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. The revenue's counsel indicated they would examine the facts in light of a previous concession made in a similar case.

The High Court noted that the issue appears to be covered by a Supreme Court judgment. In a similar prior case, the revenue had conceded that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's ruling.

The High Court condoned the delays in filing and re-filing the appeal. The court issued notice and listed the appeal for hearing.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. The appeal was listed for hearing along with another related appeal.

The High Court decided to stay the recovery of the balance demand during the pendency of the appeals, subject to just exceptions. The revenue was given liberty to approach the court if the figures provided by the appellant were incorrect.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not addressed the deletion of capital gains by the CIT(A). The revenue's counsel agreed with the CIT(A)'s approach regarding undisclosed sales and stated the proposed question of law did not concern capital gains.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It framed substantial questions of law regarding the deletion of the addition and the computation of interest under Section 234D.

The High Court decided to stay the recovery of the balance demand during the pendency of the appeals, subject to just exceptions. This was based on the appellant having paid a significant amount of the demand.

The Tribunal correctly held that the business center was exploited commercially, thus income should be treated as business income. Consequently, deductions for expenses and interest on borrowed capital were allowed.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the pendency of miscellaneous applications and a previously withdrawn appeal. The court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearing.

The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, holding that an addition under Section 68 for share application money and premium cannot be made solely based on a statement under Section 132(4) if the individual making the statement has no connection to the assessee.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to approach the appropriate High Court, as per law.

The High Court held that the issue was essentially a question of fact and that the principle of consistency, as established by the Supreme Court, should apply. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to approach the appropriate High Court, as per law.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the appellant to approach the appropriate High Court.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.