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.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. HCL Infosystems Ltd. that the receipt by the Assessee as a result of the termination of the JVA during AY 1998-99 was a capital receipt but in light of Section 55 (2) (a) as it stood at the relevant time, the said amount cannot be brought to capital gains tax.
Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT vs. Royal Jordanian Airlines that section 44BBA is not charging provision, but only a machinery provision; it cannot preclude an Assessee from producing books of accounts to show that in any particular AY there is no taxable income. In other words
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Provestment Securities Pvt. Ltd. that we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the question whether an investment had been made or not is a matter of fact and the same cannot be presumed.
Delhi High Court held In the case of: CIT vs. Suman Dhamija that in the present case the Assessee is justified in contending that although award has been made and the compensation payable has been enhanced, the amount itself is in dispute, that dispute is pending in the Court.
The facts of the case are that the Assessee, (who died during the pendency of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956.
CIT Vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Assessee has indeed discharged its onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender (TIL). There was no requirement in law for the Assessee to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the sub- creditor, which is in this case was TCL.
While hearing an appeal filed by Dabur India Ltd Promoter Pradip Burman in Black Money case related to undisclosed Bank Account maintained Outside India, Delhi High Court held that prosecution can be launched against him as at the time of commission of alleged offence
