Loading High Court cases…
568 orders · Page 10 of 12
The High Court held that the issues involved in all the writ petitions were covered by previous judgments of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', the Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', the Delhi High Court in 'Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.', and this Court's own previous orders in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors.' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the Court declared Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, rendering them bad in law and null and void. All impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all statutory formalities.
The Tribunal held that there was no single document showing the husband's present income or his income during the adjudication period. While acknowledging that outdated bank statements were considered, the court could not be faulted if the husband failed to participate and prove his income. However, the Tribunal found that evidence was necessary and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing on the application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act. Both parties were directed to adduce further oral and documentary evidence. The husband was to prove his income from 2018 to date using appointment letters, job contracts, pay slips, and IT returns, and the wife was entitled to rebut this evidence. The litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- was to be treated as full and final. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month was to be paid as interim maintenance from March 2024 until the final decision, and an ad hoc sum of Rs. 7 lakhs was to be paid towards arrears by April 15, 2024, to be adjusted later. The determination was restricted to the quantum of maintenance pendente lite.
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 held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were not substantial questions of law, as they had been decided against the Revenue in the assessee's own case for a subsequent assessment year. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the issues involved in all the writ petitions were covered by previous judgments of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', the Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', the Delhi High Court in 'Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.', and this Court's own previous orders in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors.' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the Court declared Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, rendering them bad in law and null and void. All impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all statutory formalities.
The High Court, in view of the common question of law and similarity of facts, heard all writ petitions together. The Court noted that the issues were covered by previous judgments of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', the Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', the Delhi High Court in 'Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax', and its own previous orders in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the Court allowed all the writ petitions. The Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were declared ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and thus void. All impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all legal formalities.
The High Court, in view of the common question of law and similarity of facts, heard all writ petitions together. The Court noted that the issues were covered by previous judgments of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', the Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', the Delhi High Court in 'Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax', and its own previous orders in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the Court allowed all the writ petitions. The Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were declared ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and thus void. All impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all legal formalities.
The High Court, in view of the common question of law and similarity of facts, heard all the writ petitions together. It noted that the issues involved were covered by previous decisions of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', the Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', the Delhi High Court in 'Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax', and its own previous judgments in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the Court allowed all the writ petitions. It declared Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and therefore bad in law and null and void. All impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the required legal formalities.
The High Court, in view of the common question of law and similarity of facts, heard all writ petitions together. The Court noted that the issues were covered by previous judgments of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', the Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', the Delhi High Court in 'Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax', and its own previous orders in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the Court allowed all the writ petitions. The Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were declared ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and thus void. All impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all legal formalities.
The High Court, in view of the common question of law and similarity of facts, heard all the writ petitions together. It relied on its own previous judgment dated January 17, 2022, in the case of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. The Court held that Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, are ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020. Consequently, these explanations were declared bad in law and null and void. All impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all legal formalities. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the case did not fall into the categories where the impugned notice was bad on the face of it or where the issuing authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. The Court distinguished between a wrongful or irregular exercise of jurisdiction and a lack of inherent jurisdiction. While acknowledging that the petitioner might have a strong case on merits concerning the assessment proceedings, the Court found that it was not a fit case for invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition or interfere with the notice under Section 148 or the proceedings under Section 147. The Court explicitly stated that it was dismissing the writ petition without going into the merits of the impugned proceedings and kept all points raised by the petitioner on merit open for them to be raised before the assessing officer, who was directed to consider the case on its merits without being influenced by any observations made in the order.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no error in allowing the technical purchase expenditure as business expenditure. The court noted that similar expenses were allowed in earlier years and those orders had become final.
The Tribunal held that the excise duty was constructively paid by being adjusted against input credit before the due date for filing the return. The High Court agreed that the Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiries and found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
The High Court, following its previous decision in an identical case for an earlier assessment year, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue.
The Tribunal disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent Assessing Officer to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated October 7, 2021. This representation requested the withdrawal of the impugned notice and dropping of the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to take into consideration the fact of the assessee's death in accordance with law. A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Assessing Officer was permitted to proceed further only after the disposal of the representation. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the challenge to the notices but directed a procedural disposal of the representation based on the stated facts.
The Tribunal correctly held that the Commissioner's invocation of Section 263 was unjustified. The Assessing Officer had considered all relevant documents and the assessee's consistent accounting practice was accepted.
The Tribunal held that the shares were treated as investments, not stock-in-trade, and that the principle of consistency should apply due to similar treatment in prior and subsequent assessment years. The volume of transactions alone does not determine the nature of income.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, following its prior common judgment in similar cases. The dismissal was based on the ground that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court, in view of its previous judgment dated January 17, 2022, in the cases of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr., disposed of all the present Writ Petitions by allowing them. The Court declared Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and consequently, held them to be bad in law and null and void. All the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the required legal formalities. The ratio decidendi is that the executive notifications cannot extend the applicability of statutory provisions beyond the period prescribed by the parent legislation, especially when such extension is contrary to the legislative intent of the Finance Act, 2021.
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme, and a Form No.4 was issued. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without deciding the substantial questions of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. This was because the appellant's counsel had returned the cause papers to the assessee, and no arrangements were made for further representation.
The Tribunal rightly dismissed the revenue's appeal. The assessee's operation of a berth within a port, under an exclusive license for development, operation, and maintenance, falls within the definition of 'port' for Section 80-IA purposes. The previous year's allowance of deduction further supported the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal rightly dismissed the revenue's appeal. The assessee's operation of a berth within a port, under an exclusive license for development, operation, and maintenance, falls within the definition of 'port' for Section 80-IA purposes. The previous year's allowance of deduction further supported the assessee's claim.
The High Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and had remitted the entire tax arrears, with Form No. 5 being issued by the appropriate authority. In light of this development, the Court held that the appeal need not be decided on its merits. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as the respondent/assessee had availed the benefit of the scheme and paid the tax. The substantial question of law was left open. No specific finding was given on the question of whether the income accrued in India.
The High Court observed that the tax demanded was Rs.77,84,323/-. Based on this figure, the Court held that the revenue could not prosecute the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without deciding the substantial questions of law that had been framed. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal by the revenue may not be maintainable if the tax effect is below a certain threshold, and the court may decline to hear it on merits in such circumstances. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to examine if the AO followed this mandate.
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. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, nor was any relief granted or denied to either party. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court, in view of its previous judgment dated January 17, 2022, in the cases of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr., disposed of all the writ petitions by allowing them. The court declared Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and consequently, bad in law and null and void. All the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the required legal formalities. The ratio decidendi is that the extended applicability of pre-amended reassessment provisions beyond March 31, 2021, through notifications, is beyond the scope of the enabling Act.
The Tribunal recorded the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue that the appeal cannot be prosecuted on the ground of low tax effect. Based on this submission, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law which were raised in the appeal have been left open and were not decided on merits. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal found no adverse statement from the cited trustee against the assessee and no material linking the assessee to alleged dubious transactions. Therefore, the cancellation of registration was not justified.
The Hon'ble Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent concerned to consider and dispose of the representation to be made by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order. If a representation is made within this stipulated time, the respondent shall consider and dispose of it in accordance with the law by passing a speaking and reasoned order. This process must include providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative, and the disposal should be completed within four weeks from the date of the representation. The Court explicitly recorded that it had not gone into the merits of the case and that the respondent should consider the case strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner was granted liberty to use the copy of the writ petition as its representation.
The High Court, respectfully following its earlier judgment in an identical case, answered both substantial questions of law against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The appeal was found to have no merit.
The Tribunal recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue that the appeal could not be prosecuted on the ground of low tax effect. Based on this submission, the appeal was dismissed 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. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court, recording the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue, 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. No specific finding was given on any of the substantial questions of law, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the revenue that the appeal cannot be prosecuted on the ground of low tax effect. Based on this submission, the Court dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the substantial questions of law that were raised in the appeal were left open and not decided on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.
The Tribunal rightly held that the excess amount arising from amalgamation was not income taxable under Section 28(iv) as it was capital in nature. The court found no error in the Tribunal's decision.
The High Court, recording the submission made by the revenue's learned standing counsel, 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. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.
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 ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn or dismissed if the tax effect is below a certain threshold, as per departmental instructions or policy, without adjudicating the substantial questions of law. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the revenue's learned standing counsel that the appeal could not be prosecuted due to a 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. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue that the appeal cannot be prosecuted on the ground of low tax effect. Based on this submission, the appeal was dismissed 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.
The High Court, recording the submission of the revenue's learned standing counsel, 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. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the revenue that the appeal could not be prosecuted on the ground of low tax effect. Based on this submission, the appeal was dismissed. The substantial questions of law, which were raised in the appeal, were left open. The judgment does not provide any reasoning beyond accepting the revenue's submission regarding low tax effect. No specific relief was granted or denied on the merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground of low tax effect, as submitted by the revenue's counsel. Consequently, the substantial questions of law, which were raised in the appeal, were left open and not decided on merits. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that an appeal may be dismissed by the High Court if the revenue concedes that it cannot be prosecuted due to a low tax effect, without adjudicating the substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding that capital gains cannot be computed on a figure not received by the assessee. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.
The High Court, recording the submission of the revenue's learned standing counsel, dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, the substantial questions of law that were raised in the appeal were left open and not decided on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
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 were valid and not discriminatory. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned tribunal was set aside.
The High Court held that most of the substantial questions of law were decided against the revenue, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year. The court found the Tribunal's decision on the classification of the surplus as an exchange, not a slump sale, to be correct. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court, respectfully agreeing with the reasoning of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited, and the Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., allowed all the Writ Petitions. The Court held that the Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and thus bad in law and null and void. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the required formalities. The Court found that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use administrative power to issue Notifications under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, to undermine the expression of Parliamentary supremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament, namely, the Finance Act, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that delegated legislation cannot override or defeat the plain enforcement of a statute enacted by Parliament, especially when the statute itself introduces new provisions with a clear effective date.
The High Court, respectfully agreeing with the reasoning of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited, and the Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., allowed all the Writ Petitions. The Court held that the Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and thus bad in law and null and void. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the required formalities. The Court found that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use administrative power to issue Notifications under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, to undermine the expression of Parliamentary supremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament, namely, the Finance Act, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that delegated legislation cannot override or defeat the plain enforcement of a statute enacted by Parliament, especially when the statute itself introduces new provisions with a clear effective date.