Delhi High Court – taxcaselaw.com

Delhi H.C : The petitioner has been denied approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income tax Act 1961

High Court Of Delhi Manipal Academy Of Higher Education vs. Union Of India & Anr. S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. Section 10, 10(23C), 10(23C)(vi), 11, 12, 139(1), 28, 288(2), 35, 35(1), 35(1)(ii), 41, 43(4) W.P.(C) 9996/2015 8th April, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Pachnand, Adv. for the Petitioner.: Vikram Jetly, Adv. …

Delhi H.C : Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT, under Section 263 of the Act, was illegal?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sunil Lamba Section 55(2)(a), 263 Asst. Year 1995-96 S. Muralidhar & Sanjeev Narula, JJ. ITA 465/2003 20th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ashok Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel, Pankaj Sinha, Adv. for the Petitioner : Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Kavita Jha, Devika Jain & Anant Mann, Advs. for the Respondent. DR. S. …

Delhi H.C : The Assessee had paid compensation amount “once and for all to repurchase the property” and this was “in fact a sale consideration and cannot be allowed as business expenditure.”

High Court Of Delhi Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd. & ORS. vs. CIT & Ors. Section 24, 36(1)(iii), 154, 194-I Asst. Year 1995-96 S. Muralidhar & Sanjeev Narula, JJ. ITA 210/2003, 609/2005, 611/2005, 772/2005, 1134/2005, 400/2009, 742/2009, 55/2010, 548/2010, 581/2010, 2078/2010 20th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Arta Trana Panda …

Delhi H.C : The AO framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3)

High Court Of Delhi Revolution Forever Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2009-10 S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. W.P.(C) 10857/2016 14th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: S. Krishnan & Sujata Kashyap, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Ajit Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) The petitioner is aggrieved …

Delhi H.C : The respondent/assessee was entitled – for the given Assessment Year [2005-2006], to the benefit under Section 80IB

High Court Of Delhi The Pr.CIT vs. Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd. Section 80IB, 143(1), 260A Asst. Year 2005-2006 S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. ITA 33/2019 18th January, 2019 Counsel Appeared: Ruchir Bhatia, Puneet Rai, Advs. for the Petitioner.: Piyush Kaushik, Adv. for the Respondent. ORDER CM APPL. 2109/2019 For the reasons stated in the …

Delhi H.C : What is an outgoing of capital and what is an outgoing on account of revenue depends on what the expenditure is calculated to effect from a practical and business poin of view rather than upon the juristic classification of the legal rights, if any, secured, employed or exhausted is the process

High Court Of Delhi ICS Systems Private Limited vs. CIT Section 143(2), 260A Asst. Year 2001-02 Sanjiv Khanna & Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 132/2009 10th January, 2019 Counsel appeared: A.P. Sinha, Advocate for the Petitioner.: Ashok K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): 1. M/s ICS Systems …

Delhi H.C : The petitioner impugns the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) and also seeks quashing of the fee imposed upon the petitioner as an assessee by the tax department and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

High Court Of Delhi Biswajit Das vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section : 234E Sanjiv Khanna & Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ. W.P. (C) No. 9410/2014 20th December, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Abhinav, Adv. for the Petitioner.: Suparana Srivastava, CGSC, SanjnaDua, Adv. for R-1, Zoheb Hossain, Sr. St. Counsel, Piyush Goyal, Adv. for R2-3. for the Respondent. …

Delhi H.C : the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT(A) was not entitled to consider the evidence of payment to the commission agent

High Court Of Delhi Mathur Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Delhi & Anr. Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 S. Ravindra Bhat & A.K. Chawla, JJ. ITA No. 90/2004 26th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Shashi M. Kapila, Pravesh Sharma, Siddarath Kapila and Sushil Kumar, Advs for the Petitioner.: Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for the …

Delhi H.C : the original return [which had declared Rs.49,67,00,907/-and subsequently revised to Rs.49 23,54,662/-] was assessed under scrutiny under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 31 12.2015, at Rs.61,92,17,179/-

High Court Of Delhi FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT & Anr. Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2011-12 S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. W.P.(C) 12277/2018, C.M. APPL.47539/2018 16th November, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Piyush Kaushik and Tanveer Zaki, Advocates for the Petitioner.: Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. …

Delhi H.C : According to information received by the Revenue the on the basis of a survey conducted under Section 133(A)

High Court Of Delhi Kolahai Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Section 133(A), 142, 147 and 148 Asst. Year 2010-11 S. Ravindra Bhat & Prateek Jalan, JJ. W.P.(C) 10958/2017 & CM APPL. 44815/2017 23rd October, 2018 Counsel Appeared: Salil Kapoor, Soumya Singh, Ananya Kapoor, Pallavi Saigal & Sanat Kapoor, Advocates. for the Petitioner.: Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing …

Tag: Delhi High Court