Delhi High Court held In the case of Consultating Engineering Services (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT that for reassessment as per first proviso of section 147, it is pre- condition that the assessee has not made a full and true disclosure of the material particulars necessary for the assessment.
The Delhi High Court in case of Teletube Electronics Ltd Vs CIT held that there has to be an extinguishment of ownership rights in order that a Lease transaction can be said to be a ‘sale’. The leasehold right is only for a period of ten years and at the end of that period the leased facilities revert to the owner.
In case of Ram Piyari Devi Charitable Trust Vs. Director General Of Income Tax, Delhi High Court held that in order to claim exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) , there should be existence of educational institution and approval of prescribed authority.
The Delhi High Court has held in case of Stitchwell Qualitex (RF) Vs. ITO that Installation of plant and machinery in building would amount to use of the building and therefore assessee is eligible to claim for depreciation u/s 32 on said building .
In case of Oriental Insurance Company vs. CIT, Delhi High Court held that AO could not assume jurisdiction to reopen assessment u/s 147, until his reasons of belief have a ‘direct nexus’ and a ‘live link’ with the opinion formed by him, that Taxable Income of Assessee has escaped assessment.
In case of CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta, Delhi High Court held that where objection to effect, that notice for reassessment was not served on his last known address of assessee, was taken prior to completion of reassessment
Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Anil Arora held that reference to DVO for valuation of a property itself was invalid ,when AO’s conclusion/reasoning was not based on any material discovered or seized during the search operations.
Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Pritam Das Narang held that Amount received by a prospective employee ‘as compensation for denial of employment,’ is a capital receipt . In case of assessee , where there was no commencement of employment
Delhi High Court held In the case of Director of Income Tax & Principal CIT vs. Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd. that the service tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it.
On going through the aforesaid reason, it is clear that the appellant has filed the application in a most casual manner, without justifying the reason for condonation of such a huge delay. In the circumstances, in the absence of any sufficient cause to explain the delay of 227 days
