In the case of CIT v Sri Chand Gupta, Delhi High Court held that during search and seizure under section 132, any declarations made by the assessee could not discharge his liability to the extent of cash seized as Section 132(5) of the Act does not deal with appropriation of the assets seized.
In the Case of DIT v M/s Ericsson Communications Ltd. , Delhi High Court held that when the Industrial policy of Government of India mentions that there should be no royalty paid to the parent foreign collaborator company by the Indian wholly subsidiary company then the reversal
In the case of CIT v Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Hon’ble High Court held that whenever a subsidiary company is getting subsidy from it’s holding company, then the amount of subsidy which has not been spent will not be considered as income of the Assessee.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riso India Private Limited held that the Special Additional Duty of Customs is also a duty leviable under Customs Act,1962 and all the procedures regarding demand, refund , drawback as applicable to all other custom duties would also be applicable to SAD.
Jagriti Plastics Limited vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes (Delhi HIgh Court),- Hon’ble Court noted that the price of the goods sold by the appellant included the component of customs duty paid at the time of their import and such component is reduced to the extent of usage of DEPB scrips by the company.
Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT vs. Vijay Singh Kadan that to determine whether the agricultural land is situated within 8 km of the municipal limits so as to constitute a capital asset, the distance has to be measured in terms of the approach road and not by the straight line distance on horizontal plane or as per crow’s flight.
In the case of Flevel International V/S Commissioner Of Central Excise, it was held by Delhi High Court that the denial of an opportunity of cross-examination of a witness whose statements have been relied upon in the adjudication order would vitiate the order of adjudication. In the present case
The Delhi High Court Has Held In the case of Fast Booking (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax that both the assessee as well as the department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal.
In a Historic/Landmark Judgment Delhi High Court in the case Avinash Gupta Vs. UOI has although not allowed extension of due date for filing ITR for AY 2015-16 but instructed the Govt. to ensure availability of forms for tax audit from the beginning of next assessment year.
In the case of CIT vs Kapil Nagpal, it was held by the Delhi High Court that purchase of an agricultural land used for agricultural purposes did not violate 54F conditions. Further the exclusive ownership of the residential house on the date of transfer is required to prove violation of Section 54F.
