Calcutta High Court Judgments — 2022

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Court noted that the police had made efforts to investigate the disappearance. Since the Court cannot indefinitely monitor the investigation and there was no material to suggest illegal detention, no further interference was deemed necessary.

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 modified the compensation award, recalculating it based on a higher annual income, future prospects, and a different multiplier. The court directed the insurance company to deposit the balance compensation amount with interest.

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 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 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 Tribunal held that the assessee's entitlement to deduction cannot be denied merely because the approval granted to the research organization was withdrawn subsequently. The assessee is not obligated to ensure the utilization of funds by the donee organization.

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 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 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 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 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 appellant had made out a strong prima facie case, as the claim was quantifiable based on audit reports and admissions from dealers and the employee. The court found the dealers' defense of not being informed of price circulars to be unbelievable.

The court disposed of the appeal as the revenue could not pursue it further due to the moratorium imposed under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. The substantial questions of law were left open.

The Tribunal rightly granted relief to the assessee because the show cause notice under Section 274 was defective. Such a defect is incurable as it affects the root of the matter.

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 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 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 appellant had made out a strong prima facie case, as the claim was quantifiable based on audit reports and admissions from dealers and the employee. The court found the dealers' defense of not being informed of price circulars to be unbelievable.

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 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 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 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 Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated March 24, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act dated March 29, 2022. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was granted liberty to file their response to the notice under Section 148A(b) by June 17, 2022. If the response is filed within this stipulated time, it is to be considered by the respondents, and a fresh order under Section 148A(d) is to be passed in accordance with law, observing the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was based on the admitted facts of insufficient notice period and non-consideration of the adjournment request, leading to a violation of natural justice. If the petitioner defaults in filing the response by June 17, 2022, the original impugned order and notice under Section 148 will stand revived. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence due to the significant delay in the proceedings. The court found that while the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence, the prolonged duration of the trial and appeal process constituted a mitigating factor.

The Tribunal considered the submission of the parties. The revenue produced documentary evidence from the official portal of the department which demonstrated that a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued and served upon the petitioner before the impugned order under Section 148A(d) was passed. In light of this factual finding, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the assessment itself, as the dismissal was based on the procedural aspect of notice issuance.

The High Court held that the first two questions of law were not substantial and rejected them. Regarding the third question, the Court found that the ITAT had correctly considered the factual position and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

The High Court found that the substantial question of law raised by the revenue was purely factual. The ITAT's decision was based on the actual payments made by the assessee towards settlement of claims, which was a factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated March 27, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice under Section 148 of the Act were liable to be set aside due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not contain any reference to or discussion of the petitioner's response dated March 26, 2022, which was available to the Assessing Officer before the order was passed. The court also noted the petitioner's submission regarding the unclear seven-day response period and the unaddressed prayer for adjournment. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d), taking into consideration the petitioner's response dated March 26, 2022, and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The fresh order was to be passed within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

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 revenue sought to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect was below the threshold limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court found that the matter before the ITAT was entirely factual and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The ITAT had previously allowed the revenue's appeal.

The High Court held that the monies received by the assessee from clients were held in a fiduciary capacity as an agent, not as trading receipts. Therefore, the assessee was not legally obligated to show these as its receipts, and the payments made on behalf of clients neutralized the receipts.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the ground that the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy was granted to the bank (IDBI) and subsequently credited to the assessee's account, effectively remitting a liability that had already been claimed as a deduction. This remission occurred in the assessment year 2002-03, not 2001-02.