Calcutta High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court, considering the submission of the learned senior advocate for the petitioner and the written instructions received, granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The court ordered that the writ petition be dismissed as 'withdrawn' with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate forum in an appropriate proceedings. The court explicitly recorded that it had not gone into the merits of the writ petition and that all points raised therein were kept open. The written instructions filed by the petitioner's advocate were directed to be kept with the record.

The Tribunal rightly allowed the benefit under Section 80IC as the assessee fell within the eligible category of existing undertakings. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer erred in applying Rule 8D without proper satisfaction and that the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground of low tax effect, and the substantial question of law was left open.

The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was correct, following its own prior ruling and a Supreme Court decision on identical issues. The payments were correctly classified under Section 194C.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the Trust's activities were not doubted by the Commissioner and that the Commissioner should have focused on whether the objects were charitable and activities genuine. The Tribunal found that these conditions were met and granted relief.

The High Court held that the impugned notice dated December 14, 2012, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer had the incriminating materials from the survey conducted on January 4, 2011, and the limitation period for completing the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act expired on September 30, 2012. Despite having the material and the opportunity to conduct a scrutiny assessment, the AO did not do so. The subsequent issuance of a notice under Section 148 was deemed an attempt to enlarge the time available for assessment, which is impermissible. The Court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Klm Royal Dutch Airlines v. Assistant Director of Income-Tax. The notice was quashed, and legal consequences were to follow. The court noted that quashing the notice would not prevent the respondent from taking any other lawful course of action. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction regarding the correctness of disallowance for exempted dividend income. The disallowance should be restricted to investments that actually yielded dividend income.

The High Court, recording the submission of the revenue's counsel regarding the low tax effect, dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the substantial questions of law that were raised in the appeal were left open and not decided on merits. The connected application, if any, was also dismissed. The judgment does not provide any reasoning beyond the acceptance of the revenue's submission regarding low tax effect.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground of low tax effect, based on the submission made by the revenue's learned standing counsel. Consequently, the substantial questions of law, which were raised in the appeal, were left open and not decided on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. Any connected applications were also dismissed.

The High Court, upon hearing the submission of the learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue that the appeal cannot be pursued due to low tax effect, recorded this submission. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law, which were raised in the appeal, were left open. Any connected applications were also dismissed.

The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the revenue that the appeal could not be pursued due to low tax effect. Based on this submission, the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law, which were raised in the appeal, were left open and not decided on merits. Any connected application was also dismissed. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that an appeal may be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect if the revenue so instructs, without deciding the substantial questions of law.

The tribunal held that the APL, through its nominees, can exercise voting rights in the tier-one companies and influence decisions in lower-tier companies as shareholders. However, the APL cannot directly interfere with the internal affairs of companies or lift the corporate veil.

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that most of the substantial questions of law were either not pressed, already decided against the revenue in earlier judgments, or covered by Supreme Court decisions. The disallowance under Section 14A was also found to be wrongly applied by the Assessing Officer.

The High Court, recording the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue that the appeal cannot be pursued due to low tax effect, dismissed the appeal on this ground. Consequently, the substantial questions of law that were raised in the appeal were left open and not decided on merits. The connected application, if any, was also dismissed. The principle derived is that appeals can be dismissed for low tax effect, even if substantial questions of law are involved, when the revenue itself withdraws from pursuing the matter on that basis.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground of low tax effect. The Court recorded the submission made by the revenue's learned standing counsel, who, on instruction from the department, stated that the appeal could not be pursued due to low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open. Any connected application was also dismissed.

The High Court recorded the submission made by the revenue's counsel, on instruction from the department, that the appeal could not be pursued due to low tax effect. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law, which were raised in the appeal, were left open and not decided on merits. Any connected applications were also dismissed. The ratio of this decision is that an appeal can be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect if the revenue so instructs, without deciding the substantial questions of law.

The High Court found the ITAT's reasoning for cancelling the penalty inadequate, particularly concerning the validity of the penalty notice and the voluntary nature of the income disclosure. The Court set aside the ITAT's order.

The Tribunal was correct in holding that the penalty notice was defective as it did not strike off the irrelevant portions, thus prejudicing the assessee. This jurisdictional issue could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal, especially for an individual assessee.

The High Court held that the revenue's appeal was covered by a Supreme Court decision which stated that opting for premature payment of liability under a deferral scheme does not amount to remission or cessation of liability. Therefore, the benefit derived was not a taxable receipt.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The substantial questions of law were left open.

The High Court held that the ITAT, as the final fact-finding authority, had re-examined the facts and materials on record. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the appeal.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no substantial question of law. The court relied on previous judgments and the established legal position regarding the deduction of common expenses, interest income from scrap sale, and Section 14A additions.

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the Section 263 order as the Assessing Officer had properly examined the assessee's submissions. No substantial question of law arose from the appeal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a submission by the Revenue that the appeal was hit by a CBDT circular due to low tax effect.

The High Court held that the waiver of sales tax loan was capital in nature, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. The court found that the statutory arrangement did not amount to remission or cessation of liability, thus not fulfilling the requirements of Section 41(1)(a).

The Tribunal's cancellation of assessments under Section 153C was upheld as factual. The claim for additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was also upheld based on established precedents. The addition under Section 14A was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

The High Court held that the Commissioner committed a gross error in rejecting the application, as the genuineness of the trust was established by its creation through an Act of the Assembly. The court found the Commissioner's order to be perverse and lacking understanding of legal decisions.

The High Court held that the lower authorities' rejection of the rectification application was perverse, as it ignored a binding High Court decision and CBDT circulars. The Court stated that non-consideration of a jurisdictional court's decision is a mistake apparent from the record.

The Calcutta High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the ITAT located in Delhi. Relying on previous judgments, the court stated that appeals under Section 260A lie to the High Court for the state where the Tribunal is located.

The High Court held that the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was in force at the time of its amendment and that the amendments introduced by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 are valid and not discriminatory.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that verification of the genuineness of activities is not a condition precedent for granting registration under Section 12AA. The court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's order.

The Calcutta High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the ITAT located in Delhi. The court relied on previous judgments establishing that appeals under Section 260A lie to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the ITAT order was passed.

The Calcutta High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the ITAT located in Delhi. Relying on previous judgments, the court stated that appeals under Section 260A lie to the High Court for the state where the Tribunal is located.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising powers under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had already conducted adequate enquiry and verified the claim for additional depreciation during the assessment proceedings.

The Calcutta High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders passed by the ITAT located in Delhi. Relying on previous judgments, the court stated that appeals under Section 260A lie to the High Court for the state where the Tribunal is located.

The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The High Court held that the NPV payment was a revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure, as it was made to remove an obstacle to carrying on existing business operations under a pre-existing license, similar to the Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's findings.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's appeal could not be pursued due to low tax effect. The appeal was disposed of on this ground, leaving the substantial questions of law open.

The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, following a Madras High Court decision. The court found that the reliance on the Peerless General Finance case did not assist the revenue's argument.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as infructuous due to the assessee's settlement under the Vivad Se Biswas Scheme. The substantial questions of law were left open.

The Tribunal correctly upheld the deletion of disallowances for Mine Development Expenditure, finding it allowable under Section 37(1) and consistent with its own prior orders. Similarly, VRS expenses were correctly treated as revenue expenditure and not subject to Section 35DDA.

The Court found the delay in filing the appeal to be inordinate and unexplained. The affidavit filed by the revenue lacked particulars and did not adequately address the specific averments made by the assessee regarding the VSB Scheme.

The High Court found that both the CIT(A) and the ITAT had analyzed the facts and rendered their decisions. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

The Court held that the dispute was primarily civil in nature, arising from a business relationship that soured with the deterioration of the matrimonial relationship. The criminal proceedings were initiated as an abuse of process.

The High Court held that the ITAT committed a serious error in setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer, and in interfering with the Commissioner's jurisdiction under Section 263. The court found the ITAT's order to be erroneous on both law and facts.

The High Court held that the initiation of proceedings by the revenue was bad in law as the facts were known to the authorities and there was no wilful suppression. The earlier order of adjudication dropping proceedings was also binding.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the Commissioner's order under Section 263 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal had correctly determined the limitation period based on the original assessment order.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision on the deduction of leave encashment and VRS payments, citing Supreme Court precedents. The court also followed its own prior decision in the assessee's own case regarding the taxability of sale proceeds.

The High Court found the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee's explanation was acceptable to be without sufficient reason. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIT for fresh consideration regarding the issues of sales bills and depreciation on lorries for AY 2009-10.