From Delhi High Court.

In recent adjudications, the Delhi High Court has issued several significant tax rulings, a selection of which is delineated herein.

·       The Delhi court gives directions in the case of Sunshine capital that as per section 153(3) of the Act, orders passed by ITAT, needs to be given effect by the AO within 12 months from the end of FY in the order is passed and is received by AO.

 

·       The Delhi High Court aptly holds that the language of Rule 11UA(2) unequivocally places a choice upon the assessee to opt the method of valuation of shares. As is manifest from a conjoint reading of Section 56(2)(viib) read along with Rule 11UA(2), the option and the choice stands vested solely in the hands of the assessee. (Agra Portfolio).   

 

·       In another case, Delhi High court held that DCF Valuations without providing basis for future Revenue Projections cannot be accepted (Abhirvey Projects)

 

·       Delhi High court in the case of 𝐺𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑘𝑒 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 held that AP should refer  to TPO based on CBDT instruction no. 3/2016 dated 10 March 2016. 

 

·       In the case of Agra Portfolio, the Delhi High court held that once, the DCF has been used by tax payer, the AO has no choice but to use DCF as per Rule 11UA(2).

 

·       Delhi High court in the case of Jas Forwarding held that 𝐑𝐞𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 which are an integral part of running of a business 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐚𝐲-𝐭𝐨-𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 would 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥 within the ambit of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐅𝐓𝐒.   

 

·       Once Objection have been filed by assessee against a draft assessment order within time limit prescribed under section 144C(2)(b), final assessment order should have been passed by AO post receipt of direction from DRP.  Refer Pepsico India by Delhi HC.

 

·       There is no statutory requirement imposing an obligation upon legal heirs to intimate the death of the assessee. The same was held by Delhi HC in the case of Savita Kapila.