Delhi High Court Judgments — 2023

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.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

The High Court granted the revenue leave to place case papers on record and noted that the ITAT's finding was contrary to the revenue's claim. The court will consider the appeal's viability regarding the delay and the penny stock argument.

The Delhi High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The appeals were then listed for further hearing.

The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The court then listed the appeals for further hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered by Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments. The appeal was listed for further hearing to allow the appellant to distinguish these judgments.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. Notice was issued to the respondent, and the appeal was listed for further hearing.

The High Court dismissed the current appeal, finding it similar to previously dismissed appeals. The delay in re-filing the appeal was condoned.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not considered relevant Supreme Court judgments when dismissing an appeal. The court issued notice and listed the appeal for further hearing.

The CIT(A) and the Tribunal sustained the view that since both sales and purchases were fake, they squared off each other. The High Court has decided to examine the matter further.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's appeals for the relevant Assessment Years had been admitted. The Court also condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals by the Revenue. The matter was listed for further hearing.

The High Court admitted the Revenue's appeals for specific Assessment Years. The Court also condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals, as the Revenue's appeals had already been admitted.

The High Court admitted the Revenue's appeals for specific Assessment Years. The Court also condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals, as the Revenue's appeals had already been admitted.

The High Court admitted the revenue's appeals for the specified assessment years. The court noted the distinction between cost sharing charges and testing charges, with the latter having been affirmed by the Tribunal. The matter was adjourned for further consideration of the record.

The High Court admitted the Revenue's appeals for the relevant Assessment Years. The Court also condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals, as the Revenue's appeals had already been admitted.

The High Court acknowledged that the appeal papers contained errors and granted liberty to correct them. The court noted that a similar issue regarding the validity of penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) was pending before a coordinate bench.

The Tribunal upheld the assessee's method of calculating disallowable expenses under Section 14A, invoking the rule of consistency. It also held that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'services' under the SEZ Act and Rules, which includes trading as import for re-export, is applicable for Section 10AA deductions. Therefore, the assessee's trading activities qualify for the deduction.

The Joint Registrar (Judicial) allowed the appellant's request for an extension of time. The Tribunal held that the appellant should file the required record within two weeks from the date of the current order (21.02.2023). This decision was based on the appellant's submission that they needed more time to comply with the court's earlier directive. No substantive issues of the appeal were addressed or decided. The matter was adjourned to 25/07/2023 for further proceedings. No specific ratio decidendi is applicable as the order is procedural.

The Tribunal (represented by the Joint Registrar) considered the appellant's request for an extension to file the record. The appellant, NTPC Limited, had been directed by an earlier order dated 17/01/2023 to submit the record that was filed before the statutory authority. The learned counsel for the appellant sought a further two weeks to comply with this directive. The Court heard the submission and allowed the request. The operative direction is that the record shall be filed by the appellant within two weeks from 21.02.2023. The matter was then adjourned for further listing on 25/07/2023. No decision on the merits of the underlying appeal or the issues raised by the revenue has been made at this stage.

The High Court held that Section 80IA(5) does not allow for notional carry forward and adjustment of losses already set off against other business income. The court agreed with the Madras High Court's view and disagreed with the Karnataka High Court's view.

The High Court held that being an enrolled advocate does not automatically imply sufficient earnings, especially given the difficulties faced by many young lawyers. The Court found the Family Court's presumption to be without basis.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The AO had made additions based on the same material as the first round, without fresh incriminating evidence, and failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee had requested their original return be treated as a response to the reassessment notice.

The High Court found that the Tribunal could have examined the issue of whether the land was a capital asset or remitted it to the AO. The matter requires further examination.

The High Court closed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law arose, as the matter was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. However, it allowed for revival if the revenue succeeded in a pending review petition.

The High Court closed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law arose for consideration. This was based on the understanding that the issues were covered by a Supreme Court decision, subject to the outcome of a pending review petition.

The High Court closed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law arose. This was based on the understanding that the proposed questions were covered by a Supreme Court judgment, with a caveat regarding a pending review petition.

The High Court noted that the issue was covered by a Supreme Court decision. The appeal was closed as no substantial question of law arose, subject to the outcome of a review petition.

The High Court found that the proposed questions of law were covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the appeal was closed.

The ITAT had previously held that income from software licensing and cloud services subscriptions was not taxable as royalty in India. The High Court noted that the proposed questions of law were covered by a Supreme Court judgment.

The High Court closed the appeal, stating no substantial question of law arose for consideration. This was based on the understanding that the proposed questions were covered by a Supreme Court judgment, subject to the outcome of a pending review petition.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. The appeals were closed, with liberty to the assessee to approach the court to reopen them if a review petition against a Supreme Court judgment is decided against the assessee.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. However, the appeals were closed, with liberty to the assessee to approach the court to reopen them if a review petition against a relevant Supreme Court judgment is decided against the assessee.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. The appeals were closed, with liberty to the assessee to reopen them if a review petition against a Supreme Court judgment is decided against the assessee.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. The appeals were closed based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, with liberty to the assessee to reopen if the review petition against that judgment is decided against them.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The appeals were closed, with liberty to the assessee to reopen them if a review petition against a Supreme Court judgment is decided against the assessee.

The High Court allowed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. However, the appeals were closed, subject to the outcome of a review petition filed against a Supreme Court judgment, with liberty to the assessee to reopen the appeals if the review is decided against them.

The Tribunal held that the centralized fees earned by the assessee are not taxable under the India-US Tax Treaty. This decision was based on a prior judgment of a coordinate bench in a similar case.

The High Court closed the appeal, granting the Revenue liberty to revive it if they succeed in the pending SLP. The ITAT's decision was based on the lack of incriminating material against the assessee.

The High Court held that the ITAT had the power to recall its ex-parte order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 25 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, to rectify mistakes and provide an opportunity of hearing. The court found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance.

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a specific question of law. The core of the dispute is whether income from domain registration services constitutes 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act.

The High Court noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The Tribunal correctly held that the fee income earned by the assessee for regulating the marketing of fish, poultry, and eggs falls within the scope of Section 10(26AAB) of the Income Tax Act. This is because the definition of 'agricultural produce' under the relevant state act, which the IT Act refers to, is broad and includes these items.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it noted that the issue regarding disallowance under Section 14A was covered against the revenue by previous judgments, and no substantial question of law arose.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It also admitted the appeals for consideration on a specific question of law.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court admitted the appeals for consideration on a specific question of law.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favour of the assessee. It relied on a previous judgment by a coordinate bench of the same court in a similar case involving the same assessee.

The High Court admitted the appeals for consideration. The court also noted that miscellaneous applications were pending before the Tribunal, and the appellant agreed to withdraw them.

The High Court found no substantial question of law arose for consideration. It relied on a previous decision of the same court in a similar matter involving the same assessee.

The High Court held that the appeal could not be sustained, applying the same rationale as a previous coordinate bench decision. The court noted that the SFIO order was dated after the notice for reopening assessment.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. Notice was issued, and parties were directed to file written submissions.