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
One precedence is there whereby a person aggrieved by the disposal of application for stay of demand can approach ITAT instead of writ to HC. Delhi ITAT has, in the case of Employees’ Provident Fund Vs. Addl. CIT (T.D.S) dated 10.04.2015 has admitted the appeal and has granted a stay on such demand when quantum appeal is not pending before it.
ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely in facilitating the assessee’s trading operations or enabling the management to be carried more effectively is revenue in nature even if advantage may endure for an indefinite future.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Raj Kumar Mangla vs. ACIT(Inv Circle), Gurgaon held that when a clear order transferring the jurisdiction is passed by a competent authority in law the AO from whose jurisdiction transfer was ordered can no longer assume his jurisdiction over the assessee.
