Loading High Court cases…
568 orders · Page 7 of 12
The Tribunal had previously set aside the cancellation of registration, and this decision was upheld by the High Court when the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the assessee should be assessed as a trust, not an AOP.
The High Court held that the writ petition was premature. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner's objection dated March 31, 2022, against the impugned notice under Section 154 of the Act had not yet been disposed of, and no order adverse to the petitioner had been passed on that objection. The Court directed the assessing officer to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objection in accordance with law, passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representative. This direction was to be complied with within eight weeks from the communication of the order. The principle established is that a writ petition should generally not be entertained when an alternative remedy, such as a pending objection before the assessing officer, is available and has not been exhausted.
The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment order dated March 30, 2022, was not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that the order was passed before the expiry of the time granted to the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice concerning the draft assessment. Furthermore, the Tribunal acknowledged the petitioner's inability to file the objection due to technical glitches in the Department's portal. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. This fresh order must be passed after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice dated March 29, 2022, within seven days from the date of the order, and by observing the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court held that the show-cause notice for penalty was vague and invalid as it did not disclose the required particulars, vitiating the penalty proceedings. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to the lack of sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to low tax effect. However, the appeal itself was dismissed on the same ground of low tax effect.
The High Court, considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, set aside the impugned order dated March 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent notice dated March 29, 2022, under Section 148 of the Act. The Court directed the respondent Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order under Section 148A(d) within fifteen days from the date of the order, in accordance with the law and by observing the principles of natural justice. The Assessing Officer was also directed to provide prior notice of hearing to the petitioner before passing the fresh order, and the petitioner would be entitled to produce relevant documents. The primary reasoning was the violation of natural justice due to the non-consideration of the adjournment application and the inaccurate recording of the petitioner's response.
The Tribunal found that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was justified and met statutory requirements. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the reassessment proceedings were valid on facts, despite some initial findings in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A).
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the reassessment proceedings were valid on facts, despite some initial findings in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A).
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the reassessment proceedings were valid on facts, despite some initial findings in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A).
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the reassessment proceedings were valid on facts, despite some initial findings in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal rightly interfered with the CIT's order under Section 263. The Assessing Officer had conducted due enquiry, and the CIT's observation of a 'possibility' of understatement was not a specific finding of no enquiry.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the reassessment proceedings were valid on facts, despite some initial findings in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A).
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the reassessment proceedings were valid on facts, despite some initial findings in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A).
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the matter was governed by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. V. Ashish Agarwal (May 4, 2022). The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act after April 1, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the substituted Act and treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then proceed under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees under Section 149 and other provisions were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN INDIA and was intended to govern pending writ petitions. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Assessing Officer to proceed with the reassessment proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own previous decisions in identical matters concerning the same assessee and assessment year. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the reassessment proceedings were valid on facts, despite some initial findings in favor of the assessee by the CIT(A).
The High Court dismissed the appeal due to the Revenue's non-compliance with the court's order to pay costs within the stipulated time. The substantial question of law was left open.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no dispute regarding the genuineness of the assessee's claims. The Tribunal considered the explanation that expenses were necessary to maintain the business establishment.
The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider the assessee's grounds, particularly the issue of limitation and the liberty granted by the Writ Court. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case back for a decision on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. The court also noted the non-compliance with a prior conditional order for payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the case clearly falls under the amended provisions of the Act relating to proceedings under Section 147. The issuance of a notice under Section 148A is mandatory before issuing any notice under Section 148 of the amended Act. Since this mandatory compliance was not observed in the present case, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all subsequent proceedings are not sustainable in law and are therefore quashed. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders in Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and Monoj Jain v. Union of India. However, the quashing of the notice does not debar the respondent-authority from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee due to a delay of approximately ten months in filing the writ petition without explanation.
The Tribunal held that the case clearly falls under the amended provisions of the Act relating to proceedings under Section 147. The issuance of a notice under Section 148A is mandatory before issuing any notice under Section 148 under the amended Act. Since this mandatory procedure was not complied with by the respondent-authority, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all subsequent proceedings are not sustainable in law and are therefore quashed. The Tribunal relied on its previous orders in Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and Monoj Jain v. Union of India. The quashing of the notice and proceedings does not preclude the respondent-authority from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days, due to the delay in filing the writ petition without explanation.
The High Court noted the submission by the revenue's learned standing counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law, which had been suggested, were expressly left open and not decided on merits. No other findings or directions were made by the court.
The Tribunal, in view of the submissions made by counsel for both parties and referencing decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, the Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and this court's own prior judgments in Manoj Jain v. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr., disposed of the writ petition. 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 thus void. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was 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 prescribed legal formalities. The petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund due to a delay in filing the writ petition.
The Tribunal, in view of the submissions of the parties and the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and its own previous orders in Manoj Jain v. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr., allowed the writ petition. 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. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The assessing officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the legal formalities. The petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund within seven days, due to the delay in filing the writ petition.
The Tribunal noted that the issues involved were covered by decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and its own previous orders in Manoj Jain v. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. Consequently, the Tribunal 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 void. The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The assessing officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the legal formalities. The writ petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund due to a delay in filing the writ petition.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect. The Court noted that the substantial questions of law, which had been suggested, were left open and not decided. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case or the ITAT's order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the issues involved in the writ petition were covered by several decisions of various High Courts, including the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Jaipur, and the Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Crucially, the Tribunal referred to its own judgment dated January 17, 2022, in the case of Manoj Jain v. Union of India & Ors. and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. Following these precedents, the Tribunal 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 therefore, void. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The assessing officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all legal formalities. The petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund due to the delay in filing the writ petition.
The Tribunal, noting that the issues involved were covered by several High Court decisions, including the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, and the Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, as well as its own previous orders in Manoj Jain v. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr., disposed of the writ petition. The Tribunal 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 void. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The assessing officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act and after complying with the legal formalities. The petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund within seven days, due to a delay of approximately ten months in filing the writ petition after receiving the notice.
The Court, in view of a judgment of its own dated January 17, 2022, in the case of Manoj Jain v. Union of India & Ors. (WPA No.11950 of 2021) and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. (WPO No.244 of 2021), which followed decisions of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, and Delhi High Courts, allowed the writ petition. 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 therefore bad in law and null and void. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was 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 petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund within seven days, due to a delay of approximately ten months in filing the writ petition without explanation.
The High Court, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal, held that the impugned notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject of the writ petitions, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act, as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The assessing officer is directed to provide the assessees with the information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) is dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, till date. The assessing officers shall then pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, thereafter, may issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees under Section 149 and other rights and contentions under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law remain available. This order is applicable pan-India and governs pending writ petitions.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner failed to establish any direct link or evidence connecting the assessee trust to the money laundering activities of the third-party entity. The cancellation was deemed bad in law due to lack of proper findings and violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal quashed the impugned notice dated March 31, 2021, and all further proceedings initiated based on that notice. The reasoning was that the notice was issued in the name of a dead person, and this fact, along with the intimation of death, was acknowledged by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's decision is based on the principle that a notice issued to a deceased person without proper legal representation or substitution is void ab initio. However, the quashing of the notice does not preclude the respondent Income Tax authority from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
The High Court, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal, held that the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were issued under the unamended Section 148 and were the subject of writ petitions, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices are to be construed as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). The assessing officer is directed to provide the assessees with the information and material relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks thereafter to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) with prior approval of a specified authority is dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue notices under Section 148 as substituted. All defenses available to the assessees, including those under Section 149, and all rights and contentions of both parties under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law, shall remain available. The order is applicable PAN India and governs pending writ petitions.
The Court held that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all subsequent proceedings are quashed. The reasoning is based on the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 148A before issuing a notice under Section 148, especially for cases falling under the amended provisions applicable after April 8, 2021. The Court found that this mandatory procedure was not followed by the Assessing Officer. The Court also noted that the petitioner had delayed filing the writ petition by approximately eleven months without explanation. Despite the delay, the Court quashed the notice and proceedings but clarified that this would not prevent the Assessing Officer from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee.
The High Court held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 and the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a deceased person are not sustainable in law. The Court noted that the petitioner had brought the fact of the noticee's death to the assessing officer's attention with supporting documentation. The revenue's representative could not deny this crucial fact. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021, issued under Section 148, and all subsequent proceedings based on that notice. The Court clarified that this quashing would not preclude the assessing officer from initiating fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that tax proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against a deceased individual, and any such action is void ab initio.
The Tribunal quashed the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all subsequent proceedings. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument that the notice was issued in violation of the amended provisions, specifically the mandatory requirement to issue a notice under Section 148A before issuing a notice under Section 148. The court found that this procedural lapse rendered the notice invalid. The quashing of the notice and proceedings does not prevent the assessing officer from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee, due to the delay of approximately ten months in filing the writ petition without explanation. The costs were to be paid to the Calcutta High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Benevolent Fund for the welfare of street children.
The Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Commissioner's order as a retracted third-party statement is not binding on the assessee. There was no other adverse finding regarding the genuineness or object-alignment of the trust's activities.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the Revenue's written instruction that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee availing the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The High Court held that the suit was not maintainable as it involved partial partition without impleading all co-sharers and sought a declaration without claiming consequential relief of possession. The appellant also suppressed material facts.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the revenue's appeal on the grounds of low tax effect, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that it was a sequel to a previous order where the revenue's appeal was already dismissed. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the ground of low tax effect, as the tax involved was Rs. 37,08,509/-. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open.
The High Court held that the character of a subsidy is determined by the purpose for which it is given. Applying the 'purpose test' and relying on Supreme Court judgments, the court found no error in the Tribunal's order.
The Tribunal, in view of the submissions made by counsel for both parties and referencing decisions from the Allahabad High Court (Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India), Rajasthan High Court (Bpip Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer), Delhi High Court (Man Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), and its own previous orders (Manoj Jain v. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited), allowed the writ petition. 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. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The assessing officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act and after complying with all legal formalities. The petition was allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days due to a delay in filing the writ petition.
The Tribunal noted that the issues involved were covered by several High Court decisions, including the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court in Bpip Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, the Delhi High Court in Man Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Tribunal's own prior decisions in Manoj Jain v. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. Following these precedents, the Tribunal 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 thus bad in law and void. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was 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. The writ petition was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee due to an unexplained delay of approximately eight months in filing the writ petition after receiving the notice.