In the cited case, Delhi High Court held that had the AO cared, the identity of the investors, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the share applicants would have been apparent. Even otherwise
The petitioner was engaged in the generation of electricity by burning coal resulting in production of Fly Ash as by-product which has commercial value in the market and thus it can be said that Fly Ash is marketable.
Delhi High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Customs vs. Shri Ram Niwas Verma held that acceptance of application by settlement commission in respect of gold which is covered in sec 123 is without jurisdiction as 3rd proviso to Sec 127B (1) provide a clear bar on the applications made in respect of goods covered u/s 123.
In this case ITAT examined the issue whether fee paid to golf club on behalf of director to develop links with other corporates leaders is an allowable business expenditure. On the basis of other judicial pronouncement ITAT decided this question in favour of assessee.
The ITAT president has constituted a special bench of the three members to hear the case of assessee by exercising his powers u/s 255 (3). A notice fixing date of hearing before special bench was served upon the assessee.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Orion Enterprises held that as per Basmati Rice Rules if the rice doesn’t qualify as Basmati rice then the same cannot be exported as the export of non-Basmati rice is illegal and liable to confiscation.
Delhi ITAT held in the case of Smt. Rutu Jindal Vs. ACIT, that if no statement has been recorded at the time of search and where there is no occasion for the assessee to state the fact at the time of search, the addition can not be made without taking in to account the fact of the case which is stated during the appellate proceedings.
The Hon’ble Karnataka HC in the above cited case held that there must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice of the Income-Tax Officer and the formation of his belief that income has escaped assessment.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of Harish Ahuja vs. CIT that in this case AO was not in position to verify the proper Gross profit rate because the assessee has not maintained the stock register.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alcatel Lucent Canada held that the income earned from the supply of hardware equipment where the embedded software facilitates the functioning of the equipmentcannot be taxed as royalty payments for use of software because there could not be any independent use of such software.
