ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT that a plain reading of Sec.80-IC (8)(v) which defines the term initial assessment year read with Sec.80-IC(8)(ix) which defines the term substantial expansion makes it clear that there is no restriction on more than one substantial expansion being undertaken by an assessee.
ITAT Delhi held in the case DCIT vs. M/s. Sam India Abhimanyu Housing that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA when the present assessee is not covered u/s 132 i.e. search conducted on the Assessee.
ITAT Delhi held in the case ITO vs. Rekha Bansal that it is clear that the CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee on the basis of information received from the respective banks of the creditors u/s 133(6) wherein the CIT (A) found that the creditors had sufficient bank balance in their accounts before issuing cheques to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s. Shivalik Prints Limited vs. ACIT that in the judgment of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme court have held that the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under a scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is granted i.e. one has to apply the purpose test.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Leroy Somer & Controls held that the internally generated documents by company without confirmation of the same by the other party are not sufficient to make a claim of discount.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of GE Capital Business Process Management Serves Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that M/s. GECC (USA), to whom payment has been made, itself has received the right to use the software internally including its group entities for its business and it does not have any right to commercially exploit the software.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of G.R. Commercial Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. vs CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) after considering all previous judgments of Supreme Court
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. that this issue is squarely covered by assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4776/Del/2010 vide order dated 20.02.2015, for the assessment year 2006-07 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in which it was held that
In the Case of Sapient Consulting Limited vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi relying upon the order of Jurisdictional High Court held that framing the assessment in the name of non-existent entity is not a procedural irregularity curable u/s 292B of the Act or under any other provision of the Act but it is a jurisdictional defect and hence any order passed in the name of ‘dead person’ is void ab-initio.
In the case of Shashi Gupta vs. ITO, the Delhi Tribunal while considering the effective date of transfer of immovable property for the purpose of taking benefit of time limit specified u/s 54 of the Act considered the date of ‘agreement to sell’ of an immovable property as effective date of transfer of property
