Loading High Court cases…
568 orders · Page 5 of 12
The High Court held that the Office Memorandum dated September 16, 2019, providing an exception to monetary limits for appeals in penny stock cases, would only be operable from that date onwards. Consequently, the Tribunal's order did not require interference.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The lower appellate authorities had considered the remand report and the assessee's admission of earning commission.
The Tribunal erroneously reversed the CIT(A)'s order, focusing on the non-receipt of salary for half a day. The High Court found the Tribunal's order perverse and restored the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee retired as an Advisor and the VRS benefit was not taxable.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was perverse as it followed a previous decision which was subsequently reversed by the High Court. The appeal was allowed, and the questions of law were answered in favour of the revenue.
The High Court noted that the effect of Section 199 of the Act, regarding credit of TDS, was not adequately considered. The court found that the issue warranted examination and that a mistake apparent from the record could arise from the erroneous application of a provision.
The Tribunal erroneously interfered with the PCIT's order. The assessee's failure to produce records and offer to add a percentage of bogus purchases indicated acceptance, justifying the PCIT's action under Section 263.
The High Court found that the appeal filed by the revenue had become infructuous due to subsequent events and the finality of the fresh assessment order. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation. The AO failed to conduct further inquiry or record specific reasons to doubt the explanation, making the addition perverse.
The Tribunal correctly held that the Principal Commissioner's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was erroneous. The Assessing Officer had already made an addition for bogus purchases, and the assessee had provided all necessary details and audited accounts.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent TRO5, Kolkata, to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated May 20, 2022. The disposal must be through a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the law. The petitioner or their authorized representative must be given an opportunity of hearing. The Court also directed the TRO to take a sympathetic view while disposing of the representation. This decision is to be completed within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. The principle established is that administrative authorities must consider representations with due process and a sympathetic outlook when legally mandated or appropriate.
The Tribunal correctly held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary details and no discrepancies were found.
The High Court held that it could not delve into disputed questions of fact and matters of evidence, particularly when the department presented documentary evidence (screenshots from the official portal) indicating that no adjournment petition was filed. The Court also noted that the impugned assessment order was an appealable order under the statute. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the assessment order. The writ petition was dismissed on these grounds, without deciding the merits of the adjournment petition or the assessment itself.
The tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was erroneous as it did not permit substituting one opinion for another. The tribunal also found that the assessee had provided all necessary details and no discrepancies were found, making the PCIT's revision unsustainable.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tax effect was below the threshold limit and relying on a previous High Court decision.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was not perverse and that the reassessment proceedings were indeed illegal and without jurisdiction. The court agreed that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO.
The High Court found that the ITAT's decision was in line with the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess income for completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A.
The High Court held that income tax returns are admissible to determine the income of the deceased. It also modified the deductions for personal expenses and future prospects, leading to an enhanced compensation amount.
The Tribunal rightly held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was bad in law as the twin conditions were not satisfied. The PCIT's order was based on conjecture without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.
The tribunal held that the SAIL-Gratuity Rules permit deduction from gratuity for non-vacation of company accommodation and other dues. The deduction was found to be within the ambit of these rules.
The High Court allowed the revenue's appeal, finding that the substantial questions of law raised were covered by a previous decision in a similar case (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj). The court answered the questions of law in favour of the revenue.
The Tribunal correctly allowed the deduction under Section 80IC on VAT remission, as it was considered a business receipt inseparably connected with the profitable conduct of the business. The Supreme Court's decision in Meghalaya Steels Ltd. was relied upon.
The High Court found that the issue was covered by a previous decision in a similar case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the revenue.
The Tribunal, through its Third Member, affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision that Section 40A(3) was not attracted as the expenditure was not a cash payment exceeding the limit. The Court found no perversity in the Third Member's order.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was correct and did not require interference, as identical issues had been decided in the assessee's favor for earlier assessment years. Consistency in application of law was emphasized.
The Tribunal held that the impugned notice under Section 148 and the subsequent proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable in law and were liable to be quashed. The reasoning was that the issues on which the assessing officer sought to reopen the assessment had already been considered by his predecessor during the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The petitioner had provided detailed replies and supporting materials to the queries raised, and these were accepted by the assessing officer, leading to the allowance of the claims. The Tribunal found that even if there was no explicit discussion in the assessment order, it should be presumed that the assessing officer had formed an opinion. Therefore, the action of the successor assessing officer in reopening the assessment on the same materials, without any new information or suppression of facts, amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible for reopening. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in *Marico Ltd.*. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
The revenue, through its counsel, informed the court that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the threshold limit set by the CBDT. Consequently, the department instructed to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal noted the submission by the revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below the threshold limit fixed by the CBDT. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the revenue cannot proceed with the instant appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. However, the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are expressly left open. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue), on instruction, submitted that the tax effect involved in the instant appeal was below the threshold limit fixed by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue stated that it could not proceed with the appeal. In view of this submission, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The substantial question of law, which was framed by an order dated February 18, 2019, was expressly left open by the Court.
The High Court considered the prayer made in the writ petition. It was observed that the petitioner sought the disposal of their pending appeal. The Court directed the respondent no.1, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously. The disposal was to be completed within a period not exceeding three months from the date of communication of the Court's order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself. The ratio of the decision is that administrative authorities should adhere to reasonable timelines for disposing of pending matters, and courts can direct such expeditious disposal when undue delays occur. The writ petition was disposed of with this specific direction.
The High Court found that the departmental proceedings were not vitiated by a breach of natural justice, but the quantum of punishment imposed was in violation of Rule 8(ii) of the relevant service rules. Therefore, the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the punishment.
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 Tribunal quashed the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 25, 2021, and the subsequent assessment order dated March 29, 2022. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that these actions were taken using a PAN that had been surrendered long ago and was no longer in existence. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer had wrongly recorded that returns for earlier assessment years were filed under the old PAN, indicating a total non-application of mind. The quashing of the notice and order does not preclude the assessing officer from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law in the future. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.
The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment order dated February 4, 2022, was unsustainable. The reasoning was that the order rejecting the petitioner's objections was non-speaking and did not discuss or deal with the issues raised by the petitioner. The subsequent assessment order was passed on the very next day without proper procedural compliance, specifically without issuing notices under Section 142(1) or 143(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order on the petitioner's objections dated January 24, 2022, and thereafter proceed with the reassessment proceedings in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This decision is based on the principle that assessment proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and statutory procedures.
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 Tribunal, considering the submissions, disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned assessment order dated February 4, 2022. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a fresh speaking order on the petitioner's objection to the recorded reasons, ensuring that all contentions raised by the petitioner are addressed. Furthermore, the AO must consider the petitioner's response to the notice under Section 142(1), which the petitioner is to file within seven days from the date of the order. The Tribunal also emphasized that the petitioner must be provided an opportunity of hearing before the fresh assessment order is passed. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment itself, as the order was set aside on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated April 30, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d), and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not sustainable in law. The primary reasoning was the violation of the mandatory seven-day notice period stipulated in Section 148A(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer's failure to provide adequate time for the petitioner to respond to the Section 148A(b) notice, and the subsequent ignoring of the petitioner's representation on this issue, rendered the proceedings invalid. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and notice. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. This fresh order must be a reasoned and speaking order, providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering their response to the notice under Section 148A(b), which the petitioner is to file within seven days from the date of the order.
The tribunal's decision to delete the addition was upheld. The court found no error in the tribunal's order, citing consistency with previous rulings and the absence of distinguishing factors.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, exercising discretion due to the case's history. However, the Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order, which had allowed the assessee's appeal after a remand, finding a violation of natural justice.
The High Court followed its prior decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Five, Kolkata Versus Swati Bajaj. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the revenue.
The High Court held that the oral evidence of donors contradicting their written declarations of gift to the appellant was inadmissible. Therefore, the claim for the Rs. 3,41,000/- was not accepted.
The High Court followed its prior decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Five, Kolkata Versus Swati Bajaj. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order, finding that the PCIT failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard on the grounds for revision. The Tribunal emphasized the violation of natural justice principles.
The tribunal correctly allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the adjudication order. The court held that Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable in this case as electricity generated from bagasse is not considered excisable goods. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court followed its prior decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Five, Kolkata Versus Swati Bajaj. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the revenue.
The High Court followed its prior decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Five, Kolkata Versus Swati Bajaj. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the revenue.
The High Court held that the impugned notice under Section 148 and the proceedings under Section 147 were not sustainable in law and were liable to be quashed. The Court found that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the alleged escapement of income was due to any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly during the regular assessment. It was considered a clear case of change of opinion, as the Assessing Officer sought to take a different view based on the very same materials that were available and considered during the original assessment. The Court noted that if there was a clerical or arithmetical mistake, rectification under Section 154 was the available recourse, not reopening under Section 147. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Calcutta Club Ltd. and Techspan India Private Ltd. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the notice and all subsequent proceedings.
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.