Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Delhi High Court — Direct Tax

1,066 rulings

  1. Delhi High Court · 02 Mar 2021
    The existence of incriminating material found during the course of the search is a sine qua non for making additions pursuant to a search and seizure operation.

    Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) Vs PCIT (CENTRAL) – 3

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26280 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153A

  2. Delhi High Court · 26 Feb 2021
    Application filed by the petitioner in March, 2017 invoking, Rule 24 was within time and could not have been dismissed applying the provisions of limitation applicable to Section 254(2).

    Pradeep Kumar Jindal Vs PCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26262 (HC-DELHI) · Section 254(2)

  3. Delhi High Court · 23 Feb 2021
    Normally unless contrary is established, title always follows possession and the onus of proving that the assessee is not owner is on the assessee.

    Jatinder Pal Singh Vs DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 9 NEW DELHI

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26237 (HC-DELHI) · Section 69A

  4. Delhi High Court · 23 Feb 2021
    Once the matter concerns territoriality, the place of residence cannot be said to be not relevant. The petitioner, to that extent has indulged in suppression of material facts and for this reason alone is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court.

    Dev Wines Sales Corporation Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26236 (HC-DELHI) · Section 127

  5. Delhi High Court · 03 Feb 2021
    Since the notices u/s 153A and penalty u/s 271DA have their origin in the search, seizure and survey which the Assessee was subjected to, it is open for the Settlement Commission to decide on violation of Sec. 269ST.

    Tahiliani Design Private Limited Vs JCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26124 (HC-DELHI)

  6. Delhi High Court · 28 Jan 2021
    Income tax Act not only creates rights and liabilities, but also provides for a complete machinery for enforcing the same, as well as a mechanism to challenge the orders of the Revenue authorities.

    Sarita Puri Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 & ANR.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26086 (HC-DELHI)

  7. Delhi High Court · 27 Jan 2021
    In absence of any evidence whatsoever to allege that money changed hands between assessee and the broker/ any other person, the additions cannot be sustained.

    Krishna Devi Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26075 (HC-DELHI)

  8. Delhi High Court · 27 Jan 2021
    S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stock: The fact that there was an astounding 4849.2% jump in the share price within two years, which is not supported by the financials, does not justify the AO's conclusion that the assessee converted unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The finding is unsupported by material on record & is purely an assumption based on conjecture. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities, based on Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC), cannot be cited as a basis to turn a blind eye to the evidence

    PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26073 (HC-DELHI) · Section 10(38)

  9. Delhi High Court · 29 Dec 2020
    It is settled law that in the absence of anything showing mala fide or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, the court should normally condone the delay as the intent of the court is always to promote substantial justice.

    HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24904 (HC-DELHI)

  10. Delhi High Court · 24 Dec 2020
    The appellate authorities did not follow Rule 28AA, even after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellate authority to provide the TDS computation as per the rule, thus, making the decision-making process in the present case contrary to law.

    MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24876 (HC-DELHI) · Section 264

  11. Delhi High Court · 24 Dec 2020
    Where sufficient cause for non- appearance is shown later, ITAT is obligated to consider the same and make an order setting aside the ex- parte order, irrespective of the fact that the final order was decided on merits.

    M/S KALRA PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED. Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24875 (HC-DELHI)

  12. Delhi High Court · 14 Dec 2020
    Merely because the owner of the premises searched was not the person named in the WoA issued under Sec. 132(1) does not imply that the search was conducted under Sec. 132(1A).

    SHILPA CHOWDHARY Vs PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)-I

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24797 (HC-DELHI)

  13. Delhi High Court · 27 Nov 2020
    It is in the interest of justice to have a common trial for all three complaints.

    Paraminder Singh Kalra Vs The CIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24688 (HC-DELHI)

  14. Delhi High Court · 19 Nov 2020
    Revenue's response to assessee's stay application is prima facie non reasoned and shows non application of mind.

    ALCATEL LUCENT INTERNATIONAL Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24624 (HC-DELHI)

  15. Delhi High Court · 09 Nov 2020
    Providing information regarding an ongoing investigation to its informer is not only inappropriate, but also injurious to the ongoing investigation., and only a broad outcome may be communicated, that too upon culmination of the investigation.

    PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR, INCOME TAX Vs RAJIV YADUVANSHI

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24584 (HC-DELHI)

  16. Delhi High Court · 05 Nov 2020
    HC - Mesne profits and interest on it received in lieu of the rent revenue receipt taxable as revenue receipt.

    Skyland Builders P. Ltd Vs ITO

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24558 (HC-DELHI) · Section 25B

  17. Delhi High Court · 23 Sep 2020
    The present writ petitions raise substantial questions of law.

    TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL III HOLDINGS Vs THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX) & ORG

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24290 (HC-DELHI)

  18. Delhi High Court · 01 Sep 2020
    Even if the formula for calculation of tax liability under two different statutes enacted under different entries in List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution was similar, that would not make the fields of legislation under the two entries overlapping.

    COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23145 (HC-DELHI)

  19. Delhi High Court · 19 Aug 2020
    The respondent can have no objection to being held bound by its own averments in the reply/counter affidavit. Consequently, the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs by the respondent are accepted by this Court and respondent is held bound by the same.

    MASTERCARD ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23075 (HC-DELHI)

  20. Delhi High Court · 10 Aug 2020
    Income is recognised when it is earned or realised irrespective of whether it is in cash or kind if the shares are exchanged, it can be said the assessee has made realisation of the value of the shares and the difference in the price of the shares would have to be treated as profit of the assessee for the taxation purpose.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V Vs M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23023 (HC-DELHI) · Section 2(47)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.