Loading High Court cases…
568 orders · Page 8 of 12
The Tribunal, in view of the judgments 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 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 re-assessment 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 High Court Legal Services Committee due to the delay in filing the writ petition without explanation.
The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the ITAT's order on the first two issues, upholding the deletion of additions and allowance of carrying forward losses. For the third issue, the ITAT had remanded the matter, which the High Court also found no reason to interfere with.
The tribunal's assessment of the deceased's annual income based on Income Tax Returns was upheld. The appeal by the insurance company was dismissed, and the cross-objection for enhancement of compensation was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 115JB to nationalized banks is concluded against the revenue. The appeal was dismissed, with the question answered in favor of the assessee.
The tribunal held that the APL, through its nominees, can exercise voting rights in the tier-one companies and influence decisions in lower-tier companies as shareholders. However, the APL cannot directly interfere with the internal affairs of companies or lift the corporate veil.
The tribunal held that the APL, through its nominees, can exercise voting rights in the tier-one companies and influence decisions in lower-tier companies as shareholders. However, the APL cannot directly interfere with the internal affairs of companies or lift the corporate veil.
The High Court held that the review application was maintainable despite the dismissal of the SLP. While initially inclined to condone the delay for ends of justice, upon examining the merits, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review application.
The Tribunal held that the declaration form is an integral part of Rule 33A and must be read together with the rule. The condition in the form requiring manufacture within West Bengal for export was considered valid and not contrary to the rule or the Constitution.
The tribunal held that the trust could be dissolved as its purpose had become impossible to fulfill due to the destruction of the trust property. The consent of the sole adult beneficiary was also a key factor.
The High Court, in view of the judgments 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 decisions in Manoj Jain v. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr., 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 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 High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days, due to a delay of almost ten months in filing the writ petition without explanation. The petitioner was directed to produce proof of payment before the court.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT did not record reasons to justify the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. It also found that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for deduction under Section 80IB, making the invocation of Section 263 unsustainable.
The High Court held that the process of producing poultry feed, involving steam cooking and other steps, amounts to manufacturing as the end product has a distinct identity from its raw ingredients. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
The High Court held that the revenue had no statutory power to withdraw an already issued Form 3 declaration. It also ruled that the condonation of delay in the revenue's appeal meant the appeal was deemed filed within time, validating the assessee's VSV declaration.
The High Court held that the revenue had no statutory power to withdraw an already issued Form 3 declaration. It also ruled that the condonation of delay in the revenue's appeal meant the appeal was deemed filed within time, validating the assessee's VSV declaration.
The High Court found that the ITAT's reversal of the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) lacked sufficient reasoning. The Tribunal's reliance on certain documents without adequately addressing the fabricated evidence claims of the CIT(A) was deemed insufficient.
The High Court held that the second proviso to Section 84(1) of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2015, is constitutionally valid. The Court reasoned that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and can be circumscribed with conditions. The pre-deposit requirement is a procedural condition for the entertainment of an appeal, not an infringement of the vested right of appeal or compulsory extraction of tax. The Court found no violation of Article 14 as all categories of dealers are treated similarly under the appeal provisions. The principle of "reading down" was deemed inapplicable due to the clarity of the proviso. The Court also noted that the proviso was validly made applicable retrospectively and that the legislature has the freedom to impose conditions for entertaining appeals. The alleged hardship of dealers was considered irrelevant to the vires of the statutory provision. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the constitutional validity of the proviso was upheld. For cases where assessment orders were challenged, appellants were granted liberty to file appeals within 30 days, to be entertained without rejection on grounds of limitation if conditions of Section 84(1) were complied with. For show-cause notices, liberty was granted to file replies within 30 days.
The High Court noted that the revenue was not pursuing the appeal due to low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
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 Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and therefore, 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 reassessment 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. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High 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, to be ultra vires the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and consequently, bad in law and null and void. The Court quashed all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The reasoning was based on the High Court's own judgment dated January 17, 2022, in Manoj Jain and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited, which had addressed similar issues. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment 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. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order dated February 3, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's objections was not a speaking order, as it failed to address the petitioner's specific grievances regarding the non-issuance of the notice on March 31, 2021, and its non-uploading or display on the IT portal on April 1, 2021. The respondent's counsel was unable to deny the petitioner's allegations that their representations were not adequately replied to before the impugned order was passed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The respondent authority was directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated January 20, 2022, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks. All further proceedings would be contingent on the outcome of this reconsideration.
The Tribunal dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of inordinate delay. The court noted that the petitioner filed the writ petition almost two years after the Section 148 notice was issued and failed to provide any explanation for this delay. Furthermore, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to file objections before the Assessing Officer, as permitted by the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Others. The court observed that the petitioner's arguments regarding the substitution of Section 148 provisions appeared to be a tactic to evade tax. The court found no merit in interfering with the notice after such a significant delay and without exhausting the statutory remedies. The petition was dismissed with costs.
The High Court noted that the ITAT's order allowing the deduction was made after the cancellation of a Section 263 order. Since a previous High Court judgment had already dismissed the revenue's challenge to the ITAT's order that gave effect to the cancellation of the Section 263 order, nothing further survived for consideration.
The High Court noted that the entire tax demand had been settled, rendering the appeal infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of without deciding the substantial questions of law.
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay due to unexplained substantial delays and a lack of sufficient cause. The Court found a bureaucratic approach and a reverse process in decision-making, indicating a lack of application of mind.
The tribunal held that the APL, through its nominees, can exercise voting rights in the tier-one companies and influence decisions in lower-tier companies as shareholders. However, the APL cannot directly interfere with the internal affairs of companies or lift the corporate veil.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay. It found that the Revenue could not rely on the Office Memorandum as the assessee had not claimed any LTCG/STCL, and without this reliance, there was no explanation for the inordinate delay.
The High Court found that the ITAT had correctly analyzed the facts and concluded that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation. The court determined that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that retention money is not accrued income until satisfactory completion of the contract and is payable only after such completion and certification. Therefore, its disallowance was incorrect.
The High Court, in view of its previous judgments dated January 17, 2022, in the cases of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. (WPA No.11950 of 2021) and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. (WPO 244 of 2021), allowed the writ petitions. 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 bad in law 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 reassessment 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 retrospective extension of pre-amended reassessment provisions through notifications, beyond the scope of the parent Relaxation Act, 2020, is illegal.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was disposed of on this ground, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be unsatisfactory and indicative of a casual, bureaucratic approach by the department. The court noted the inordinate delay and the lack of sufficient cause shown by the revenue.
The High Court, in view of the judgments of this court dated January 17, 2022, in the cases of Manoj Jain-vs-Union of India & Ors. (WPA No.11950 of 2021) and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. (WPO No.244 of 2021), 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, to be 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, 1961, 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 extension of pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, 149, and 151 beyond March 31, 2021, through subordinate legislation, without legislative backing from the parent Act (Relaxation Act, 2020), is invalid.
The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The Court acknowledged the appellant's request for an adjournment due to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal but stated that it would not adjourn the matter any further. The Court noted the age of the appeal (from 2005) and the efforts made to list old matters. Despite the warning list being published, the appellant had not made arrangements to proceed with the arguments. The Court found it unclear what the impact of the National Company Law Tribunal's order would be on the present proceedings but decided not to grant any further adjournment.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal. The court noted that the revenue failed to provide evidence of a pending appeal against the earlier ITAT order and that the tax assessed was below the threshold for further appeal.
The High Court allowed the petition (GA/1/2014) for change in the cause title. Regarding the appeal (ITA/46/2006), the Court noted the submission of the appellant's counsel that the assessee had availed the benefit of the direct tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 5 was issued on July 27, 2020. Based on this submission, the Court held that the appeal stands dismissed. The substantial question of law, if any, was left open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal rightly affirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee had consistently followed the LIFO method, which was accepted in previous years and upheld by the Tribunal in an earlier assessment year. The CBDT circular also advised against obtaining confessions during survey operations.
The High Court held that interest subsidy and excise refund are capital receipts and do not form part of book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal has the power to entertain such claims even if a revised return was not filed before the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had correctly granted relief to the assessee on foreign travel expenses, additional depreciation, and commission paid to agents after a thorough factual review. The Tribunal also found no error in restricting the Section 14A disallowance to the amount of exempt income.
The Tribunal was justified in quashing the cancellation order because the Commissioner's findings differed from the show cause notice allegations and were not supported by evidence. Crucial documents were not provided to the assessee, and witnesses were not made available for cross-examination.
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue. The court found absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay of 2635 days and noted the non-compliance with a previous direction to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Consequently, the court was not inclined to exercise its discretion to condone the delay. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. The substantial questions of law, which the Revenue had proposed, were left open. The connected application for stay was also closed.
The High Court, in view of the common question of law and similarity of facts, heard all the writ petitions together. The Court noted that the issues involved were covered by previous judgments of the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and crucially, by this Court's own orders dated January 17, 2022, in the cases of Manoj Jain and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited. 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, and therefore bad in law and null and void. All the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 prescribed legal formalities. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had re-appreciated facts and evidence, and its findings were based on such re-appreciation, not on legal error.