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’.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. that this is basic requirement of law u/s 147 that before reopening of assessment, AO must have apply his mind to the available materials
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Escorts Ltd. that in view of the nature of the conduct displayed by Sh. Gupta, i.e. preferring an application for intervention which was rejected, being Intervener Application No. 5779/2008
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vodafone South Ltd. vs. CIT that the netting of the interest paid on the borrowed sum against the interest income earned is allowed. There was a direct nexus between the earning of interest on the loan advanced by the Assessee and payment of interest to the bank.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Consultating Engineering Services (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT that for reassessment as per first proviso of section 147, it is pre- condition that the assessee has not made a full and true disclosure of the material particulars necessary for the assessment.
The Delhi High Court in case of Teletube Electronics Ltd Vs CIT held that there has to be an extinguishment of ownership rights in order that a Lease transaction can be said to be a ‘sale’. The leasehold right is only for a period of ten years and at the end of that period the leased facilities revert to the owner.
In case of Ram Piyari Devi Charitable Trust Vs. Director General Of Income Tax, Delhi High Court held that in order to claim exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) , there should be existence of educational institution and approval of prescribed authority.
The Delhi High Court has held in case of Stitchwell Qualitex (RF) Vs. ITO that Installation of plant and machinery in building would amount to use of the building and therefore assessee is eligible to claim for depreciation u/s 32 on said building .
