Delhi High Court held In the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. DCIT held that it is only the AO who has issued the original assessment order under Section 143 (3) ,who is empowered to exercise powers under Section 147/148 to re-open the assessment.
Delhi High Court held In the case of YUM Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that both entities i.e Yum Asia and Yum Singapore which hold the shares of assessee, Yum India, for pre and post restructuring period respectively, were distinct entities.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal that as per section 50B, the value of the net worth must be computed by decreasing from the actual cost of asset falling within the block, the depreciation actually allowed in respect of previous years relevant to the assessment year commencing before 1st day of April, 1988
Delhi High Court held In the case of Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors that the powers and functions of an income tax authority which are to be exclusively exercised by the settlement commission must be in the context of and have a nexus with the settlement proceedings.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Facor Power Ltd. that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. This is so because, the Tribunal has correctly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Limited [2009 315 ITR 255 (DEL).
Delhi High Court held In the case of M/s. Aggarwal And Modi Enterprises (Cinema Project) Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs. CIT that whether a liability is ascertained or contingent is dependent on the facts of each case. Merely because a liability may be contractual or non-statutory would not make it incapable of being ascertained.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. M. Tech India Pvt. Ltd that in cases where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) Vide this judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was pleased to read down the effect of para 4 of Instruction No. 9 of 2006, which provided that the AO was compelled to initiate reassessment in case of an audit objection, even if the AO is not in agreement with the objections of the Audit party.
Pr. CIT vs. Toll Global Forwarding India Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court) CUP method can be applied by a comparing a pricing formulae, rather than the pricing quantification in amount. Rule 10AB inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2012 is beneficial in nature and so retrospective w.e.f. 01.04.2002
Delhi High Court held In the case of Raj Dulari Bhasin vs. CIT that merely because the Assessee approached the builder for constructing the flats on the portion apart from the already constructed portion, would not make the transaction an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’.
