Loading High Court cases…
166 orders · Page 2 of 4
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 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.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the interest income accrued from fixed deposits made out of business income and should be treated as business income. The High Court found the Tribunal's order sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated January 26, 2021, issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order based on that notice were null and void. The reasoning was that the notice was issued against a deceased person, as substantiated by the death certificate. The Tribunal quashed the impugned notice and the subsequent assessment order. The operative direction was to quash the said notice and assessment order.
The High Court held that the Commissioner's revision order under Section 263 was not justified as it lacked particulars and failed to demonstrate that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-banking financial company, had to follow RBI norms and that borrowings were for its lending business. Consequently, the interest paid on such borrowings was eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the activities of the trust, including running medical facilities and selling medicines, constitute medical relief and are within the purview of a charitable purpose as defined in Section 2(15). The existence of marginal profit does not disqualify the trust from being charitable.
The Tribunal held that it is not necessary for the assessee to prove that the debt has actually become bad, as per Supreme Court decisions and a CBDT circular. It is sufficient if the bad debt is written off in the books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the advances were trade deposits from customers and not unexplained cash credits. Therefore, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to restrict disallowances and allow miscellaneous expenses was based on factual findings by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. They found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.
The High Court, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) SCC OnLine SC 293, dismissed the appeal. The substantial question of law was answered against the revenue. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court's ruling on the application of Section 12AA and Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was binding. The ratio decidendi is that if a higher court has ruled on a specific legal issue, lower courts and tribunals must follow that precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was upheld, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. Connected applications were also dismissed.
The High Court, upon hearing the submissions, noted that the learned standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the appeal was hit by a CBDT circular due to low tax effect. Recording this submission, the Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. Consequently, the substantial question of law was left open, meaning it was not decided on its merits. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal based on the low tax effect circular.
The High Court held that the amendment to Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, removing the 8-year restriction on carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation, applies to all unabsorbed depreciation available from assessment year 2002-03 onwards. Therefore, depreciation losses incurred prior to the amendment, if not fully set off, can be carried forward indefinitely.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as it was hit by a CBDT circular due to low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the Revenue's written instruction. The assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, leading to the withdrawal recommendation.
The Tribunal held that utility rooms/servants quarters are an integral part of the residential flat and cannot be sold independently. Therefore, the combined area exceeding 1500 sq. ft. violated Section 80IB(10)(c), making the deduction inadmissible.
The High Court disposed of the appeal based on a submission by the Revenue that it was hit by a CBDT circular due to low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court disposed of the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, leaving the substantial questions of law open. Therefore, the ITAT's decision on the valuation method was not overturned by the High Court.
The High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the non-compliance with Section 40(a)(ia) was a technical breach that could be condoned. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions and affirmed the relief granted to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the retention money was already included in the gross sales offered to tax and reflected in loans and advances, and was not an addition warranting separate tax. The High Court found no substantial question of law, noting that upsetting the Tribunal's finding would lead to double taxation.
The High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, as per a CBDT circular. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law (a) and (c) were already decided against the revenue in the assessee's own case. For question (b), the court followed a precedent that Section 50's deeming fiction is limited to computation of capital gains and does not affect exemptions under Section 54E.
The High Court held that Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules is applicable for computing Fringe Benefit Tax for tea companies. Consequently, only 40% of the fringe benefit expenses are to be considered for FBT computation, aligning with the principle of computing income from tea sales.
The revenue, based on a communication from the Income Tax Officer and a Supreme Court decision, sought to withdraw the appeal. The High Court accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, especially since a similar issue for an earlier year was decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and the revenue did not appeal. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal.
The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the ITAT's order. The ITAT had meticulously considered the facts and law, concluding that the revision order was unsustainable. The substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries, issued questionnaires, received responses, and cross-verified loan statements with third parties. Therefore, the AO's assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
The High Court found that the ITAT had properly re-appreciated the facts and applied relevant legal principles. The tribunal's findings on all issues, including the disallowances and the nature of the land sale, were deemed justified and did not give rise to any substantial question of law.
The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on a communication from the Income Tax Officer and a Supreme Court decision. The High Court accepted the withdrawal request.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in deeming grounds 2(b) and 2(c) as infructuous without assigning reasons. The court remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine these grounds along with the directions given by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable because the Assessing Officer had already considered the relevant information and issued queries during the original assessment, which were answered by the assessee. Therefore, the reopening constituted a change of opinion.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, based on the submission that the appeal was hit by a CBDT circular regarding low tax effect, the Court dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) does not apply if the shareholder is beneficial but not registered, and that shareholding reflected in the balance sheet should be considered. The High Court followed a previous identical decision where the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court, following its own prior decision in a similar case, held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal rightly held that for invoking Section 263, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The court affirmed that the amendment to Section 32(2) dispensed with the eight-year limit for carrying forward unabsorbed depreciation, making it available for set-off without restriction.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court held that participants who knew the selection parameters and participated without objection waived their right to challenge the process later. The tribunal erred in setting aside the entire recruitment process when no such prayer was made.
The High Court held that forfeiture of convertible warrants amounts to a transfer under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, making the loss allowable as a capital loss. The substantial questions of law raised were not properly raised before the Tribunal.
The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in treating grounds 2(b) and 2(c) as infructuous. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine these grounds along with the remanded computation.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal itself was disposed of based on the assessee's availing of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
The Tribunal held that the interest payment was an allowable business expenditure under Section 43B, even if not debited to the profit and loss account or claimed in a revised return. Appellate authorities can entertain such claims. Similarly, interest on recurring deposits is taxable only upon maturity.
The High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, as it was below the monetary limit fixed by the CBDT. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was disposed of due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, with liberty to restore it if the scheme application is rejected.
The Tribunal correctly upheld the deletion of the penalty. A show cause notice under Section 274, which does not specify whether the charge is for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, is considered vague and defective.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was subsequently disposed of by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, leaving the substantial question of law open.
The Tribunal correctly held that the Commissioner's order under Section 263 was barred by limitation. The limitation period should be reckoned from the original assessment order, not a subsequent order giving effect to an appellate decision.
The High Court noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the court did not need to decide the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.
The High Court noted that the present appeal was connected to another appeal (ITAT 153 of 2017) which had already been dismissed. Since the substantial issue was decided in the connected appeal, nothing remained for consideration in this appeal.
The Tribunal's distinction of the Saurashtra Cement Ltd. case was incorrect. The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to correctly apply the legal propositions laid down by the Supreme Court regarding capital vs. revenue receipts.