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.
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
