In the of CIT Vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd, Delhi High Court held that the AO erred in disallowing the capitalization of the additional customs duty in the manner claimed by the Assessee and adding the entire customs duty paid in the relevant AY to the income of the Assessee.
In the case of Rampgreen Solutions Pvt Ltd vs CIT, Delhi High Court inter-alia held that the expression ‘BPO’ and ‘KPO’ are, plainly, understood in the sense that whereas, BPO does not necessarily involve advanced skills
Delhi High Court held in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT that No disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee. Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not apply to shares bought for strategic purposes.
Bhumika Enterprises Vs Commissioner Value Added Tax & Anr In a major relief to VAT dealers in the State of Delhi, the High Court of Delhi has quashed the system generated assessment orders issued by the VATO.
Delhi High Court held in CIT Vs DLF Universal Ltd held that If assessee got hundi from its suppliers and get it discounted from the bank ,then the discounting charges paid by the assessee would be treated as a revenue expense;
Delhi High Court In the case of Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust vs DIT (Exemptions) held that Assessee would not be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the IT Act if its activities are outside the scope of its objects, even if its activities are charitable in nature.
In the case of CIT Vs. MGF Automobiles Ltd., Delhi High Court upheld the order of the ITAT that the additions could have been made by the AO only if some incriminating document was found during search.
Sanjeev Mittal Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) The assessee was a medical practitioner with professional income and income from capital gains as returned income. The A.O. contended the income from capital gains to be the income from business or profession as he noticed that the professional receipts
In the case of CIT vs Rathi Graphics Technologies Ltd. Delhi High Court inter-alia held that the conversion of a portion of interest into shares should be taken to be “actual payment” within the meaning of Section 43B of the IT Act.
In the case of CIT vs Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd , Delhi High Court reiterated its own order in case of CIT vs. Edward Keventer (Successors) Pvt. Ltd that it would not be open to a respondent to travel outside the scope of the subject matter of the appeal under the guise of invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
