1.     THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JINDAL PHOTO LTD. [ HIGH COURT OF DELHI] 

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the  Income Tax Act,1961 challenging the order dated 05th June, 2009 passed by  the Income Tax  Appellate Tribunal (in short “ITAT”) in ITA No.  3808/DEL/2007 for the Assessment  Year 2004-2005. By virtue of the  impugned order, ITAT has deleted the addition of  Rs.8,54,53,935/- made by  the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) on  account of  deduction claimed under Section 80-IB. Held In our opinion, the factual  findings of the final fact finding authority are neither perverse nor contrary to record. 

(Click here for judgment) 

2.    COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ULTRATECH FINANCE & INVESTMENT LTD. [HIGH COURT OF DELHI]  

The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that ITAT had erred in law in deleting the addition of rupees twenty two lacs made by the Assessing Officer (in short „AO‟) on   account of unexplained share application money under Section 68 of Act,  1961. She further submitted that ITAT had deleted the said addition even  though the primary onus had not been discharged by the respondent-assessee  with regard to the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the  transaction. 

(Click here for judgment) 

3.    COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SMT. SURAJ DEVI [HIGH COURT OF DELHI] 

The facts relevant to the present case are that the respondent assessee had made investment in properties bearing No. 101, Ground Floor, Bangala Sahib Road, New Delhi  and a flat on the first floor of that property. The respondent-assessee had duly registered the purchase deed with the Sub-Registrar-VI, New Delhi. The said investment was duly declared in the regular return filed by the respondent-assessee. It is pertinent to mention that the property purchased is a disputed property which is tenanted and whose mutation has not been allowed in the name of the respondent-assessee by the Land and Development Officer. However, the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) made an addition on account of undisclosed payment having been made by the purchaser/respondent-assessee solely on the basis of the report of DVO. 

(Click here for judgment)