Loading High Court cases…
486 orders · Page 10 of 10
The High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment in *New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.* Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. The ratio is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a precedent, the court will apply that precedent to dispose of the matters.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment was based solely on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO), which is impermissible in law. The Court noted that the Petitioner had provided detailed information regarding expenses and investments related to earning exempt income during the original assessment proceedings. This information, including party-wise details of expenses and investments in group companies for strategic interest rather than dividend income, was considered and accepted by the AO when passing the original assessment order dated July 20, 2018. The Court found that the AO had the complete material and had applied his mind to it. Therefore, the AO could not subsequently claim a reason to believe that taxable income had escaped assessment based on the same information. The Court also rejected the Revenue's contention regarding reliance on a CBDT circular and audit objections, as these were not raised during the original assessment. Consequently, the Court found no tangible material to justify the reopening of the assessment. The petition was allowed, quashing and setting aside the notice dated March 31, 2021, and the consequential order dated January 21, 2022.
The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment of 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.'. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The judgment explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. The ratio of the decision is that if reassessment proceedings are found to be covered by a binding precedent, the proceedings themselves should be set aside.
The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment of 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.'. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The judgment explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. The ratio of the decision is that if reassessment proceedings are found to be covered by a binding precedent, the proceedings themselves should be set aside.
The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment of 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.'. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The judgment explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. The ratio of the decision is that if reassessment proceedings are found to be covered by a binding precedent, the proceedings themselves should be set aside.
The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The court also kept open all other rights and contentions raised in the petitions. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a precedent, the court will apply that precedent to dispose of the matters, quashing the impugned actions.
The High Court, in light of the agreement between the parties that the present petitions are covered by the judgment in 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.', quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court also set aside any consequential notices or orders. The petitions were disposed of with all other rights and contentions raised by the petitioners being kept open. The judgment did not specify the exact reasoning from the 'New India Assurance' case that applied, but the agreement of counsel indicated its applicability. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue of improper sanction, as decided in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, squarely applies to Assessment Year 2017-2018. In the cited case, the Court had ruled that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, sanction ought to have been obtained under Section 151(ii) and not Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the sanction was deemed invalid, leading to the invalidity of the notice issued. The Court further reasoned that if a notice is invalid, any assessment order passed relying on such an incorrect sanction must also be quashed. Applying this principle, the High Court quashed and set aside all notices, assessment orders, and consequential orders issued for Assessment Year 2017-2018 on the ground of invalid sanction. The petition was disposed of, with a clarification that other grounds could be raised in future proceedings.
The High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petitions. The Court observed that Mr. Naniwadekar, representing the petitioner, sought leave to withdraw the petitions. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitions be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner. The specific reasons for withdrawal were not elaborated upon in the order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petitions.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, disposed of the writ petition by referring to its recent order dated January 8, 2024, in Writ Petition No. 10075/2023 (Satguru Sai Extrusions Private Limited vs. Union of India and others). The Court stated that the law has crystallized to the effect that an assessee, like the Petitioner, can raise all grounds and contentions, and these can be considered while hearing the proceedings under Section 148-A. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in light of this established legal position.
The High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petitions. The Court observed that Mr. Naniwadekar, representing the petitioner, sought leave to withdraw the petitions. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitions be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner. The specific reasons for withdrawal were not elaborated upon in the order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petitions.
The High Court held that the reasons provided for reopening were indeed incomplete and that the petitioner was not given an effective opportunity to deal with the reasons to believe that there was an escapement of income for Assessment Year 2013-2014. The Court found a discrepancy between the reasons communicated earlier and those annexed to the Section 151 approval, confirming the petitioner's claim of being prejudiced. Consequently, the impugned order dated February 16, 2022, and the subsequent assessment order dated March 25, 2022, were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration. The petitioner was directed to file detailed objections to the Section 148 notice. The Assessing Officer was instructed to provide any requested documents within two weeks of the request and to pass a reasoned order disposing of the objections after granting a personal hearing. Reassessment proceedings are to be completed by April 30, 2024, and if objections are not accepted, the reassessment order by June 30, 2024. The Court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.
The High Court held that the present writ petition is covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned order dated July 21, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice dated July 21, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. All other rights and contentions raised in the petition were kept open. The principle derived is that if a matter is squarely covered by a High Court judgment, the same relief should be granted.
The High Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petitions. The Court observed that Mr. Naniwadekar, representing the petitioner, sought leave to withdraw the petitions. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitions be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner. The specific reasons for withdrawal were not elaborated upon in the order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petitions.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal against the order dated 29th November 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court further directed that if the appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of the order, it would be considered as within time. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with liberty granted.
The High Court held that the notices issued for reopening the assessments failed to satisfy the 'twin conditions' and therefore could not have been exercised by the Assessing Officer. The Court reasoned that the Assessing Officer relied solely on the opinion in the third Shah Commission Report without independently assessing or recording reasons, which constituted a jurisdictional error. Furthermore, since the notices were issued beyond four years, the condition regarding full and true disclosure was not established. This was because the fact that mining leases were illegal beyond 22.11.2007 was not known to the assessee when filing returns for AY 2008-09 and 2011-12. The Apex Court declared such leases illegal only in 2014. Therefore, prior to this declaration, neither the assessee nor the Assessing Officer had knowledge of the illegality, negating the possibility of disclosure. The Court also noted that reasons for reopening cannot be supplemented or substituted belatedly. Consequently, both notices under Section 147 were quashed and set aside. The rule was made absolute, and the petitions were disposed of.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court also kept open all other rights and contentions raised in the petitions. The ratio of the decision is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a prior judgment of the High Court, the same relief should be granted.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions before it would be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court further directed that any consequential notices or orders also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open for the parties to pursue. The ratio of the decision is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a prior judgment of the same High Court, the principles of that judgment should be applied, leading to the quashing of similar actions by the Revenue.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions before it would be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court further directed that any consequential notices or orders also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open for the parties to pursue. The ratio of the decision is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a prior judgment of the same High Court, the principles of that judgment should be applied, leading to the quashing of similar actions by the Revenue.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners would be covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in all the respective petitions. Furthermore, any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court also explicitly kept open all other rights and contentions raised by the petitioners in their respective petitions, indicating that the decision was based solely on the applicability of the precedent judgment and not on the merits of other arguments.
The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions before it would be covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of cases are demonstrably covered by a binding precedent, the High Court can quash the impugned actions of the tax authorities based on that precedent. The petitions were disposed of.
The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions before it would be covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of cases are demonstrably covered by a binding precedent, the High Court can quash the impugned actions of the tax authorities based on that precedent. The petitions were disposed of.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions are covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions are quashed and set aside. The Court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The petitions were disposed of, with all other rights and contentions raised by the petitioners being kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a prior High Court judgment on similar grounds, the High Court can quash the impugned notices and orders without delving into the merits of each individual case, thereby providing swift relief to the assessees.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions are covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions are quashed and set aside. The Court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The petitions were disposed of, with all other rights and contentions raised by the petitioners being kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a prior High Court judgment on similar grounds, the High Court can quash the impugned notices and orders without delving into the merits of each individual case, thereby providing swift relief to the assessees.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions before it would be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court further directed that any consequential notices or orders also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open for the parties to pursue. The ratio of the decision is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a prior judgment of the same High Court, the principles of that judgment should be applied, leading to the quashing of similar actions by the Revenue.
The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the respective petitions, were quashed and set aside. The Court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. All other rights and contentions raised by the petitioners in their petitions were expressly kept open. The principle established is that if a case is factually and legally identical to a precedent set by a higher court, the relief granted in the precedent should be extended.
The High Court held that all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners would be covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in all the respective petitions. Furthermore, any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court also explicitly kept open all other rights and contentions raised by the petitioners in their respective petitions, indicating that the decision was based solely on the applicability of the precedent judgment and not on the merits of other arguments.
The High Court directed that to balance equities, the respondent Income Tax Department should allow the assessee to address the department on the issue of potential double assessment and double taxation when the proceedings under Section 148A commence. The petitioner/assessee was permitted to submit written notes of submissions along with a compilation of case law. The Income Tax Department was instructed to consider these submissions and the cited law, and pass a reasoned order. If the department concluded that there had been no previous assessment of the amount under the head for which assessment was commenced, it could proceed on merits. By consent of the parties, the writ petition was disposed of with all contentions kept open.
The High Court held that authorities should not adopt a pedantic approach when considering condonation of delay under Section 264 of the Act, but rather should be liberal to advance substantial justice. The court cited its own precedents and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the principle of advancing substantial justice is paramount, and the revisional authority can consider the merits of the revision petition while deciding on condonation. The court also referred to the wide powers conferred upon the Commissioner under Section 264, which are intended to provide relief to assessees in cases of over-assessment and are to be exercised in the interests of justice. The court noted that the petitioner had made detailed submissions during personal hearings and filed written submissions explaining the delay. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated March 6, 2019, and directed the PCCIT to condone the delay and hear the petitioner's application under Section 264 on merits. The PCCIT was instructed to pass a reasoned order by May 31, 2024, after providing a personal hearing to the petitioner. The court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the Section 264 application itself.
The High Court noted that both the petitioner and the revenue agreed that the issue in the present petition was covered by the judgment pronounced by the Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notices dated March 31, 2021, and July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the orders dated January 4, 2022, and July 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The principle derived is that if a matter is squarely covered by a prior judgment of the same court, and both parties agree, the same relief will be granted. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that the issue in the present petition was covered by its previous judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The petition was disposed of in terms of this finding. No specific ratio decidendi beyond the application of the precedent was recorded, and no issues were left undecided.
The High Court held that the sanction obtained for issuing the notice was improper. Following its own precedent in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, the Court ruled that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the sanction should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not under Section 151(i). Consequently, the sanction was deemed invalid. The Court reasoned that an invalid sanction renders the notice issued based upon it invalid. Therefore, the notice, any subsequent assessment order passed relying on that incorrect sanction, and all consequential orders were quashed and set aside. The principle established is that a procedural defect in obtaining sanction under Section 151, specifically the wrong sub-section being invoked for a particular assessment year, invalidates the consequential notice and assessment. The Court clarified that other grounds could be raised in future proceedings. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment by the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021, was based merely on a change of opinion of the Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the original assessment proceedings. The Court relied on the judgment in Aroni Commercials Limited V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, which established that once a query is raised during assessment proceedings and the assessee replies, it is considered subject to the Assessing Officer's consideration, even if not explicitly discussed in the assessment order. The Court found that the issues of financial costs and other expenses had been discussed during the original assessment, as evidenced by the disallowance of interest on TDS. Therefore, the change of opinion did not constitute justification for believing that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The petition was allowed, quashing the Section 148 notice.
The High Court held that the notice dated March 23, 2021, under Section 148 of the Act, the order dated February 14, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's objections, and the draft assessment order dated March 16, 2022, are quashed. The Court found that the reopening of assessment was initiated after the expiry of the four-year period from the end of the relevant AY (March 31, 2018, for AY 2013-14). The reasons for reopening were based on the petitioner's own Profit & Loss account and financial statements, which were already on record during the original assessment. Therefore, it could not be said that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment due to the petitioner's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Court concluded that the reopening was based on a change of opinion without any new tangible material. The AO had all the primary facts and it was his duty to make necessary inquiries and draw proper inferences, which he failed to do. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Gemini Leather Stores v. Income-tax Officer and Voltas Limited (Supra) regarding the conditions for reopening assessments beyond four years and the requirement for independent belief by the AO. The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause (A), quashing the impugned notice, order, and draft assessment order. Rule was made absolute.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 is beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal found the Revenue's contention that the Supreme Court, in Ashish Agarwal (Supra), deemed notices issued between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021 as issued within limitation by excluding days under TOLA to be fallacious. The Tribunal reasoned that if notices were deemed issued on 31st March 2021, then the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, which came into force from 1st April 2021, could not apply, contradicting the Apex Court's direction that the new provisions have to apply to such notices. The Tribunal noted that the limitation period to issue reopening notices under Section 148 for all Assessment Years prior to AY 2013-14 had already expired on 31st March 2019 or earlier, and TOLA could not save such time limits. The Tribunal also found the Revenue's reliance on Touchstone Holdings and Salil Gulati to be unconvincing, noting that the Delhi High Court in those cases did not provide findings on notices issued after May 2022 pursuant to Ashish Agarwal, and in Touchstone Holdings, the assessee did not argue that the time limit would have expired even under TOLA on 31st March 2021. The Tribunal concluded that accepting the Revenue's contention would be a travesty of justice. Having decided in favour of the assessee on the issue of limitation, the Tribunal did not discuss other grounds of challenge, allowing the petitioner to raise them independently in other proceedings.
The High Court held that the appeal did not involve a substantial question of law as all facts were considered by the lower authorities. The disallowance of expenses was based on findings of bogus transactions and lack of connection to the contract work.