Delhi High Court held In the case of Rakesh Kumar Garg & others vs. CCE that the SCN which proposed the penalty would have to make out a case for how Rule 26 is attracted. In the present case, apart from merely stating that the three Appellants were in control of the affairs
Delhi High Court held In the case of Abhishek Govil & Somya Salwan vs. CIT that the maintenance agreements expressly referred to the payments in question as “Maintenance and service charges”. A plain reading of the agreements also indicates that the said charges were payable as consideration for providing services mentioned therein.
Delhi High Court held in case of Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO upheld the order of Delhi ITAT and held that under Section 79 of the Act the set off and carry forward of loss, which is otherwise available under the provisions of Chapter VI,
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.
