Delhi High Court in the case of Maithon Power Ltd. vs. CIT held that The expenditure incurred to set up operations forms the part of capital work in progress and thus, the subsequent reimbursement of any part thereof would be a capital receipt which will get reduced from the amount capitalized under the capital WIP.
In the case of CIT vs M/s.Motherson Auto P. Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the monopoly enjoyed by the assessee in respect of the product manufactured, the continuous functioning, the large volume of orders at hand when the collaboration transaction took place, were sufficient basis for valuation.
In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that the Iraqi Government’s inability to pay due to sanctions imposed by it and the subsequent Central Government’s negotiating an arrangement for its payment through bonds that were to mature in future with interest did not in any way alter their character
In the present case the Hon’ble High court while deciding two vital issues held that the estoppels does not apply against a statute and Mere expansion of the Existing Units can’t be termed as a separate undertaking in order to claim deductions under section 10A.
Even though the excise duty was for manufacturing activity that occurred earlier, the liability to pay such additional duty did not exist in the previous years and as a result, could not have been claimed by the assessee as expenditure in the concerned previous years.
In the present facts of the case the Hon’ble High Court held that as the assessee have not taken substantial risks and was a mediator in the international transactions. Hence, Transactional Net Margin Method is a right method instead of Profit Split method.
In the present case, the Hon’ble High court held that the proceedings of re-assessment could be made if full and true facts have not been disclosed earlier. Also, it was held that section 68 could be invoked if the genuineness of parties are not proved.
Shiv Nandan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) In the present case the Hon’ble High Court have deleted the addition on account of a notional income when advances were made without charging of any interest.
Tribunal examined two main issues in this case firstly, whether any addition is required to be made in the hands of assessee on account of unexplained investment in purchase of house property. Secondly, whether assessees have paid any amount over and above the consideration shown in the sale deed
The court has dealt with two issues in this case. Firstly, whether Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by AO on account of claim made by the assessee towards cost paid to Hindustan Lever Ltd. for salary of Managers, Officers on deputation.
