Delhi High Court Judgments — 2023

The High Court quashed the impugned notices and the assessment order. The Court found a clear failure to adhere to the directions contained in Clause N.1.3 of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Assessment Unit (AU) dated 03.08.2022, which mandates a minimum timeframe of seven days for the noticee to respond. The Court noted that the show-cause notice dated 09.12.2022 was issued without taking into account the petitioner's reply filed on 08.12.2022. This procedural defect, coupled with the petitioner's inability to file a response due to technical issues and lack of response to its escalations, led the Court to conclude that the principles of natural justice were violated. The SOP was framed in consonance with Section 144B(6)(xi) of the Act. Liberty was granted to the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment exercise in accordance with the law.

The High Court held that the assessment orders and penalty orders were to be set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to file objections to the notices issued under Section 148 (under the old regime) within six weeks, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner's authorized representative and pass a speaking order dealing with the objections. The Court also stipulated that any information or material held by the Assessing Officer should be furnished to the petitioner prior to inviting objections. The Assessing Officer was to complete this exercise within six weeks of the objections being filed. The petitioner conceded that it would not argue that the new reassessment regime was applicable, given the recourse to the old regime. The writ petitions were disposed of in these terms.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the income under Section 44BB. The High Court noted that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment in India.

The High Court noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The court noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision in the assessee's own case, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed threshold limit for lodging the appeal.

The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The court also noted that the issue in this appeal is similar to another pending appeal and listed both for the same hearing date.

The ITAT held that the Vasant Vihar property was always intended to be held as an investment, supported by its inclusion in the balance sheet before the search. The proceeds from its sale were offered as short-term capital gains.

The High Court admitted the appeals, framing specific questions of law regarding the applicability of Rule 18BBB(4) and Form 10CCB for Section 80IC deductions. The operation of the impugned ITAT order was stayed pending the appeal.

The High Court admitted the appeals, framing specific questions of law regarding the applicability of Rule 18BBB(4) and Form 10CCB for Section 80IC deductions. The operation of the Tribunal's order was stayed pending appeal.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The court noted that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate bench, and therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. As the issue was covered by a Supreme Court judgment and no substantial question of law arose, the appeal was closed.

The High Court noted that the issue was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the appeal, given the prior ruling on the Permanent Establishment issue. Consequently, the appeal was closed.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court noted that the ITAT had ruled in favour of the assessee, even if MIPL was considered a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment, no income could be attributed to the assessee.

The High Court held that the impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 264 was erroneous. The Court found that the interest income of ₹1,51,67,868/- was indeed taxed for Assessment Year 2014-15, as reflected in the assessment order dated 28.10.2016 under Section 143(3). The Court acknowledged the settled principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice. It also reiterated that the powers under Section 264 are wide and are meant to do real justice between the parties, extending to correcting errors, including those inadvertently made by the assessee. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to revise the assessment order for AY 2014-15, considering that the same amount was brought to tax in AY 2012-13. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh order.

The High Court agreed with the coordinate benches and held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Consequently, the appeal was closed.

The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view that rental income did not accrue due to a dispute. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as a coordinate bench had already taken a view in a similar matter. The appeal was consequently closed.

The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal, framing questions of law regarding the applicability of Section 22 to stock-in-trade and the method of calculating income using a presumptive rate on the stock difference.

The High Court condoned the delay of 399 days in re-filing the appeal, as the assessee did not oppose the application. Following this, the revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax impact of the appeal was below the monetary threshold prescribed for lodging appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Court closed the appeal. However, the Court explicitly stated that the questions of law shall remain open. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was closed on procedural grounds related to the monetary limit.

The High Court granted the Revenue leave to file an additional affidavit within two weeks to provide material particulars for the delay condonation. The matter was listed for further hearing.

The High Court directed that the current appeal be listed along with the pending appeal in the quantum proceedings. The court did not decide the merits of the current appeal.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The parties agreed to abide by the decision in a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) related to a similar matter.

The High Court agreed with the Tribunal and CIT(A) that no income had accrued to the assessee due to a dispute over rent. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose.

The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The appeal was closed as it was covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate bench, and parties agreed to abide by the decision in a pending Special Leave Petition.

The High Court noted that the appeal was covered by a prior judgment and that parties would abide by the decision in a pending Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was closed.

The High Court held that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had returned concurrent findings of fact. The transactions were conducted through accredited brokerage firms on the stock exchange, and funds were received through banking channels, indicating they were not bogus.

The High Court held that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had returned concurrent findings of fact. The transactions were conducted through accredited brokerage firms on the stock exchange, and funds were received through banking channels, indicating they were not bogus.

The High Court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P Ltd. mandates that late deposits of employee contributions are not allowable deductions. However, it acknowledged a separate issue regarding a deposit made on the day after a national holiday.

The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had already ruled on a similar matter in favour of the assessee. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The High Court issued notice on the Revenue's application for condonation of delay. The parties were directed to file written submissions and electronic case papers.

The High Court issued notice on the application for condonation of delay and accepted notice on behalf of the assessee. The court directed parties to file written submissions and list the matter for further hearing.

The High Court condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. A specific question of law regarding the admissibility of trading loss due to stock destruction was framed.

The High Court admitted the proposed questions of law, acknowledging the assessee's grievance that the ITAT order was perverse and self-contradictory. The court noted the discrepancy in the ITAT's ruling on both the primary and alternative pleas.

The High Court noted that the issue had been settled by a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was closed, and the Tribunal's order was sustained.

The High Court noted that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had deleted the disallowance. The revenue's counsel conceded that a coordinate bench had already decided the issue in favor of the assessee.

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed questions of law for consideration, which were identical to those in ITA 218/2017. Notice was issued to the respondent.