Loading High Court cases…
568 orders · Page 1 of 12
The Tribunal found that the assessee had suo moto added back the excess scientific research expenditure and that the advertisement expense was correctly accounted for in the relevant year due to the furnishing of necessary documents by the non-resident vendor. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT had not conducted independent enquiry and that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The High Court held that the appellants should first approach the Criminal Court for relief regarding the prosecution. A Writ Court should not intervene at this stage.
The Tribunal had granted relief on Section 35DD deduction based on earlier years' allowance and the continuing nature of the deduction. For Section 14A, the Tribunal correctly applied established legal precedents regarding disallowance of expenses related to tax-free income.
The High Court held that the applications were not maintainable. The order condoning delay had already worked itself out, and the final judgment could not be recalled; a review application would be the appropriate remedy for any apparent errors.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law (a), (c), (d), (f), and (g) were academic and left them open. Questions (h) and (i) were rejected.
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that Form-5 had been issued to the assessee on March 1, 2022. In light of this, the Court held that the appeal need not be proceeded further. The appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit of the scheme. Consequently, the substantial questions of law that were suggested were left open, meaning they were not decided on merits. No specific operative directions were issued other than disposing of the appeal.
The Tribunal had granted relief on Section 35DD deduction, noting it was allowed in prior years and is a continuing deduction. For Section 14A, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision affirmed by the High Court.
The High Court found that a substantial question of law arises regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148A. To prevent the writ petition from becoming infructuous, an interim order was granted.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arose. For Section 35DD, the deduction was allowed as it was a continuing one and allowed in prior years. For Section 14A, the Tribunal's decision was based on established legal precedents.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue had become academic due to the absence of gross total income. Therefore, the questions were left open and not decided.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions of the parties, found merit in the petitioner's contention. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show-cause notice on the same day the assessment order was passed, and this reply was apparently ignored. The respondent's counsel was unable to refute this claim. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order dated September 26, 2022. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law. This fresh order is to be passed after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after taking into consideration the petitioner's objections to the show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass the fresh order within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The Tribunal dismissed the writ petition. Regarding the impugned penalty order, the Tribunal was not inclined to interfere because the petitioner had already chosen the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, which was still pending. Concerning the impugned assessment order, the Tribunal also declined to interfere. It noted that the petitioner had not filed an appeal against the assessment order and had delayed in taking steps to obtain a certified copy, applying for it in March 2019, nearly two years after the order was passed and then filing the writ petition in December 2022. The Tribunal found no merit in the writ petition considering the facts, circumstances, and the petitioner's conduct. However, the dismissal of the writ petition was without prejudice to the respondent authority's obligation to furnish a certified copy of the assessment order if not already provided based on the petitioner's application dated March 12, 2019. The order also stated that it would not impact the pending penalty proceedings, which would be decided on their own merits.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The reasoning was based on the written instructions from the appellant (revenue) stating that the appeal was below the threshold limit fixed by a CBDT circular, making it unpursuable. The Tribunal noted that the substantial questions of law suggested in the appeal were left open. No specific relief was granted or deleted, and no part of the appeal was remanded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court, while upholding the view taken by the learned Single Bench regarding the initial non-compliance, was inclined to grant relief to the appellant based on the subsequent amendment to the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. The Court noted that the third installment was paid on October 16, 2017, which was before the extended cut-off date of January 31, 2020, as per the notification dated December 13, 2019, following the Finance (No.2) Act of 2019, which had retrospective effect from June 1, 2016. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to approach the respondent authorities with a fresh representation, including the details of the amendment and the notification. The concerned authority was directed to consider this representation and pass a speaking order on merit within three weeks. In the interim, the assessing officer was restrained from taking coercive steps for recovery of tax and penalty pursuant to the assessment framed on December 26, 2017. The appeal and connected applications were disposed of.
The Tribunal held that Form 26AS, being maintained by the Income-tax Department, should be considered more reliable than a TDS certificate issued by the payer. The AO was directed to use the figures from Form 26AS for computation.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the order of assessment dated May 23, 2022, were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court, considering the exceptional circumstances of inadvertent human error by the Chartered Accountant leading to non-receipt of notices, entertained the writ petition despite the order being appealable. The Tribunal directed that the impugned reassessment order dated May 23, 2022, be treated as a draft assessment order. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a reply or objections to this draft order. Upon receipt, the Assessing Officer was directed to pass a final assessment order within eight weeks, ensuring an opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner or his authorized representative before passing the fresh final assessment order. This order was made conditional upon the petitioner depositing 20% of the tax arising from the draft assessment order within one week.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the notice under Section 148A(b) was granted by the Principal CIT-9, Kolkata. It found that this authority does not fall under the purview of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which specifies the competent authorities for granting such approval. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the approval was not authorized by law and was therefore not sustainable. Based on this finding, the impugned notice under Section 148A(b) and all subsequent proceedings were deemed unsustainable in law and were accordingly quashed. The Tribunal clarified that this quashing would not prevent the Income Tax authorities from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law in the future. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.
The High Court found that the delay was not properly explained and there was a lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the department.
The Tribunal rightly held that the assessment order was bad in law because the Assessing Officer passed it without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from this decision.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was correct, as the loss arose from forward contracts that had not expired and the assessee followed the mercantile system. The Court found no error in the ITAT's reliance on Supreme Court judgments, stating that CBDT circulars cannot override Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court of Calcutta disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for stay of the demand before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within one week. The Court directed that if such an application is filed, the CIT(Appeals) shall consider it in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This consideration must be done within two weeks of receiving the application. The Assessing Officer was restrained from taking coercive action for recovery of the demand for five weeks from the date of the order or until the CIT(Appeals) passed an order on the stay application. The Court noted that if the petitioners fail to file the stay application within the stipulated time, the order would have no force. The CIT(Appeals) was also urged to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously.
The Tribunal held that the impugned notice and order dated July 28, 2022, were not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact, supported by records, that the assessment proceedings were initiated against a non-existing entity, Creative Vintrade Private Limited, which had already been converted into Creative Vintrade LLP. This conversion had been previously intimated to the Income Tax Authority. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned notice and order. The disposal of the writ petition would not preclude the Income Tax authority from issuing any fresh notice in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated July 30, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad and not sustainable in law. The reasoning was based on the admitted factual and legal position that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (2016-2017) and that the alleged escapement of income was below Rs. 50 lakh. The Tribunal found that these facts rendered the order liable to be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order dated July 30, 2022. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, granted the petitioners liberty to make an appropriate representation before the concerned Income Tax Authority to address their grievances raised in the writ petition. This representation is to be filed within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt, the authority is directed to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law, passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative, within four weeks of receiving the representation. Until the disposal of the representation, a status quo order is to be maintained with respect to the impugned order dated 13th April, 2022, for a period of eight weeks. The order of status quo will cease to have effect if the petitioners fail to file their representation within the stipulated time. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations and directions.
The High Court found that the ITAT's decision to reduce the Net Profit Percentage was based on factual considerations, including the assessee's past profit margins and audited accounts. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, and without delving into the merits of the impugned order, set aside the order solely on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, which is a fundamental requirement. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representatives. This fresh order is to be passed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the Tribunal's order. No other issues were decided, and no specific findings were made on the merits of the assessment.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to reduce the Net Profit Percentage was factually correct. The Tribunal had considered the assessee's historical profit margins and the fact that the business operations remained the same. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, and without delving into the merits of the impugned order, set aside the order solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law. This fresh order must be passed after providing the petitioner or its authorized representatives with an opportunity of hearing. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass this fresh order within eight weeks from the date of communication of the Tribunal's order. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a detailed inquiry, including issuing multiple notices and receiving elaborate explanations from the assessee. Therefore, the twin conditions for exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 were not met.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated July 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction. The Court noted that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) itself recorded the chargeable income as Rs. 6,75,000/-, which is admittedly below Rs. 50 lakhs. This fact, coupled with the petitioner's argument that reassessment cannot be reopened beyond three years when the escaped income does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs as per Section 149(1)(a), led to the decision. The revenue's counsel was unable to justify the impugned order. Consequently, the Court quashed the reassessment proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if the escaped income is below the specified threshold (Rs. 50 lakhs in this case) and the assessment year is beyond the three-year limit, reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A are invalid and liable to be quashed.
The High Court recalled its order condoning the delay because the revenue failed to pay the stipulated costs to the assessee within the given timeframe. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court allowed the Revenue to place all facts, including the CBDT circular, before the Tribunal to enable it to take an appropriate decision.
The High Court found no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The petition for condonation of delay was dismissed.
The High Court held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to show that the liability had not ceased. The department failed to prove that the liability had ceased to exist, especially considering the long period the liability was carried forward and payments made to creditors.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated July 22, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice dated June 30, 2021, under Section 148A(b) were bad and not sustainable in law. The Court reasoned that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (2016-17). Furthermore, the alleged escaped income, admitted to be Rs. 23,92,400/-, was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold. These facts, as appearing from the impugned order itself, rendered the proceedings without jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that notices for reassessment under the amended provisions, particularly concerning the time limits and monetary thresholds stipulated in Section 149, must be strictly adhered to. The Court quashed the impugned order and the notice. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not determined the objects of the trust to be non-charitable and that there was no material to suggest ulterior motives for the donation. The Tribunal distinguished a relied-upon case where the assessee provided no evidence of charitable activities.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erroneously interfered with the PCIT's order. The Court found that the assessee had accepted the bogus nature of purchases by offering a partial addition, and the Assessing Officer's inquiry was insufficient.
The High Court modified the tribunal's award, recalculating the compensation based on the victim's salary income, applying a corrected multiplier, and adjusting general damages as per Supreme Court precedents. The court found the income from business unsubstantiated.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, following its own previous decision in a similar case. The dismissal was based on the ground that the Principal Commissioner had exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act improperly, which was against the law.
The High Court found that the ITAT did not provide independent reasoning on the merits of the case or discuss the applicability of relied-upon judgments. Therefore, the Court could not test the correctness of the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to set aside the PCIT's order under Section 263 was correct, as the PCIT had not properly exercised its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to set aside the PCIT's order under Section 263 was correct, as the PCIT had not properly exercised its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the assessee has availed the benefit of the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" and Form V has been issued recording the same. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law are left open. This implies that while the appeals are no longer being adjudicated on merits due to the scheme, the underlying legal issues remain undecided by the High Court. The ratio would be that if an assessee opts for and is granted relief under a settlement scheme like "Vivad Se Vishwas", the pending appeals are disposed of without deciding the substantial questions of law.
The High Court found that the ITAT did not provide independent reasoning on the merits of the case or discuss the applicability of relied-upon judgments. Therefore, the Court could not test the correctness of the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to set aside the PCIT's order under Section 263 was correct, as the PCIT had not properly exercised its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Court has directed that the matters be listed for further directions. Notice is to be served on the Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India concerning the writ petition.
The High Court found the ITAT's order to be justified, noting that the AO had followed directions from a previous Section 263 order and conducted thorough inquiries, including examining directors. The court concluded that the AO's view was plausible and there was no non-application of mind.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged that the tax effect was below the threshold limit stipulated by the CBDT circular, which implies that the Revenue should not pursue such appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law that had been previously framed by the Court. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law remain open, indicating that no decision was made on the substantive issues of the case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court noted the submission by the revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the instant appeal was below the threshold limit as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Court held that the revenue could not pursue the appeal further on this ground. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The substantial questions of law, which had been previously framed by the Court, were expressly left undecided. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the low tax effect, rendering a decision on the merits of the substantial questions unnecessary.