Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. that the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) subsequent to 16th December 2010
Delhi High Court held In the case of Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the current case there is no reasonable scientific method adopted by the Assessee to estimate the transit breakages to justify such provision.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Universal Precision Screws that interest on fixed deposits has the requisite characteristic of business income and has a nexus to the business activities of the Assessee.
CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court -Full Bench) [2002] 256 ITR 1/123- When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that the mere fact that there was a judgment of the Supreme Court of 1997 which was not noticed by the AO when he framed the original assessment cannot per se constitute the only material on the basis of which the assessment could have been reopened.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Hamdard Laboratories India and Anr vs. ADIT (E) & DGIT (E) that Hamdard‟s objects are charitable in nature and its activities relating to manufacture and sale of unani medicines
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. that any changes in the audited financials like for e.g., the ‘regrouping’ of shares in the present case, if at all permissible, has to be preceded by a legally acceptable procedure adopted by the Assessee
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. that the requirements regarding recording the reasons to believe; communicating the same to the Assessee; permitting the Assessee to file the objections
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Unitech Ltd. that where there are conflicts of opinions of the various benches of the ITAT on the provision u/s 80AC of requirement of return filing before due date to claim deduction u/s 80IB (10)
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd. that the requirement of both the issuance and the service of such upon the Assessee for the purposes of Section 147 and 148 of the Act are mandatory ‘jurisdictional requirements’.
