Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Abhinandan Investment Ltd. that there is no necessity or occasion for trader to separately determine the cost of acquisition of each item of goods sold by him; he is only required to prepare a trading account while reflecting the aggregate sales and purchases.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Bausch & Lomb Eye care (India) Pvt. Ltd. that in the absence of any machinery provision, bringing an imagined transaction to tax is not possible. The decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC) and PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 75 (SC) make this position clears.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principle CIT vs. Nikki Drugs & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. that the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gopi Apartments: (2014) 365 ITR 411 (All.) has held that even in cases where the assessing officer of the person searched and the assessee who is sought to be assessed under Section 153C is the same
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Vishishth Chay Vyapar Ltd. that the legal requirement that the reason to believe must be predicated on tangible material or information” and that the belief must be rational and bear a direct nexus to the material on which such a belief is based” was not fulfilled in the present case.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Shri Parasram Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the present case is related to change of opinion. This is so, because in the questionnaire, the AO specifically raised the issue with regard to the validity of shareholdings.
Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (Delhi HIgh Court) This is a nascent issue tested for the first time by any High Court in India with far reaching effects as regards the power to direct a special audit.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Triune Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that if ITAT have no doubt on slump sale agreement and do not thinks that it is a colourable device than the agreement between the parties must be accepted in its totality.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Paras Buildtech India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that the settled legal position as far as Section 145 is concerned is that it is not open to an AO to reject the accounts of an Assessee unless he comes to a determination that notified accounting standards have not been regularly followed by the Assessee.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vinod Kumar Khatri vs. DCIT that revised return relate back to return originally filed, minus the omissions and wrong statements. Even if the revised return replaces the original return, the assessment proceedings leading up to the revised return do not get obliterated.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT that the Court is satisfied that in the present case, the Assessee is carrying on business as an independent enterprise and is incurring AMP expenses for its own benefit and not at the behest of the AE.
