CIT Vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- During the Assessment Year 2000-01, in which the issue arises, the assessee had returned Rs. 144 Crores receivable from Non-Performing Assets in accordance with the guidelines by reversing its income accounted for and offered for tax in earlier years.
Insilco Limited Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Honourable Tribunal has rightly given the aforesaid directions, which are nothing but pointing out what the AO was required to do under the law.
CIT Vs Ms Mayawati (Delhi High Court)- All the donors appeared before the Department, submitted material including affidavits on oath, confirms the gifts made, established their old relations with the assessee and proved their capacity to make the gifts. We have noted that in earlier years also they had made gifts to the assessee and her family members, which were accepted by the Revenue.
All Grow Finance And Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- Only condition laid down in second part of sub-section 2 of Section 36 of the Act is that the amount should be advanced in the ordinary course of business which by itself proves its revenue nature and no further conditions are required to be satisfied which are only applicable with regard to debt qualifying as bad debt in the first part of sub-section 2.
Rolls Royce Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs ADIT (Delhi High Court)- It is critical to examine if the agent has carried out work wholly or almost wholly for the other enterprise, to determine if he is an independent agent under the India- Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The attribution of profit to the Permanent Establishment (PE) needs to be done on the basis of a Transfer Pricing Analysis.
CIT Vs Dewan Chand (Delhi High Court)- Payments made by the assessee to the employees employed by it on daily wage basis cannot be said to be a contractual payment, as such the assessee in such cases was not required to deduct tax from such payments u/s. 194 C of the Act.
CIT Vs Shri Prem Gandhi (Delhi High Court)- In view of retrospective amendment in Sec 132(1), the Tribunal order stating that Addl Director has no powers to issue warrant for authorisation of search, does not survive. Assessee can be allowed to raise a fresh ground of no-service of notice u/s 143(2) before the Tribunal as this issue was argued before the CIT(A).
The Delhi High Court on Monday said the DTH service was like a cinema ticket providing continuous entertainment to viewers and hence, liable to be taxed by the state government. Four prime DTH service providers — Tata Sky, Dish TV, Bharti Telemedia (Airtel) and Bharat Business Channel (Videocon) — had challenged this state legislative provision.
General Electric Company Vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Delhi High Court)- Section 163 really provides only the machinery for giving effect to Sections 160 and 161, and the mere appointment of an agent under Section 163 would be of no consequence unless there is income in respect of which the agent can be held to be a representative- assessee under Section 160 and can be assessed as such under Section 161 of the Act.
CIT Vs V. R.V. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd. (Delhi High Court)- The observation made in paragraph 58 at page 414 of the aforementioned judgement, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for revenue seeks only to emphasise that the assessee in that case, had only acquired access to technology which was not related to any secret process or patent rights and thus in continuum it is mentioned that not even a right to use the trademark or brand name had inhered in the assessee.
