Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Pritam Das Narang held that Amount received by a prospective employee ‘as compensation for denial of employment,’ is a capital receipt . In case of assessee , where there was no commencement of employment
Delhi High Court held In the case of Director of Income Tax & Principal CIT vs. Mitchell Drilling International Pvt. Ltd. that the service tax is not an amount paid or payable, or received or deemed to be received by the Assessee for the services rendered by it.
CIT vs. Pritam Das Narang (Delhi High Court) – Amount received by prospective employee for loss of employment offer is a capital receipt and is neither taxable as salary and nor as Income From other sources.
Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Edward Keventer (Successors) Private Limited held that factors like intention of the assessee in purchasing the property, duration of time property was kept by assessee, lack of any transactions of sale or purchase of property throughout relevant period of time
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court), ITA 83/2003, Dated-09.10.2015 Claim that notional interest on funds placed by the s. 10A eligible unit with the H.O. is allowable as a deduction to the H.O. and is exempt in the hands of the s. 10A unit is an unsustainable view.
Delhi High Court has held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT that Under Section 254 Tribunal has inherent power to entertain alternative plea of which was not urged before CIT(A). High Court Directed the Tribunal to consider the Plea of the Assessee that in case he is denied benefit
Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT Vs. M/s Ericsson Communications Ltd. that mere passing of the book entries, which are reversed, would not give rise to an obligation to deduct TDS by the Assessee, as clearly, there is no debt that can be said to be acknowledged by the Assessee.
High Court held In the case of M/s Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT that in this case, queries and issues have been specifically raised and answered by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. Thus, even though AO did not make any addition in the assessment order
Delhi High Court Held In the case of I.P. Support Services India (P) Ltd vs CIT that AO cannot invoke Section 14A read with Rule 8D (2) without recording his satisfaction and noted that the recording of satisfaction as to why the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee was unreasonable
Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT v Smt. Priyanka Singhania that if the search warrant was issued in the name of the father of Assessee, then the proceedings of the search and seizure against the assessee was totally void and bad in Law.
