Loading High Court cases…
568 orders · Page 9 of 12
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal's decision that the cash payments fell under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(b) and 6DD(k) was upheld, based on the factual findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision on facts, and objections regarding fresh evidence were not raised earlier by the revenue.
The High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the revenue on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The Court held that the appeal stands abated due to the death of the respondent/assessee. The Court stated that it is not their role to wait for the department to take steps to set aside the abatement. If the department wishes to restore the appeal, they are free to do so in accordance with the law. Given the age of the appeal (filed in 1999) and the abatement, the Court was not inclined to keep the appeal pending any longer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as abated. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court found no sufficient cause shown by the department to condone the inordinate delay. Consequently, the petition to condone delay was dismissed.
The High Court allowed the appeal, following its previous judgments on identical issues for earlier assessment years. The court found no distinguishing factors to deviate from its prior rulings.
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 its own prior decisions dated January 17, 2022, in the cases of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited. Consequently, the High Court 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 thus 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 the required legal formalities.
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 were covered by previous decisions of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', 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 High Court disposed of all the writ petitions by allowing them. 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 the legal formalities.
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding no acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.
The High Court held that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were correct in treating the income as business income, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Chennai Properties and Investment. The court found that the assessee's business activity of renting commercial space was supported by its Memorandum of Association and books of accounts.
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated September 2, 2019, passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the specific stand taken by the respondent Income Tax Authority, as conveyed through written instructions dated January 5, 2022, that they were agreeable to transferring the Income Tax file of the petitioner back from Bangalore to Kolkata. The court noted that all legal consequences would follow automatically. The instruction dated January 5, 2022, was directed to be kept with the record. The writ petition was disposed of in view of this order. The issue regarding allowing proceedings initiated by the DCIT CC 2(3), Bangalore, during the stay period was not expressly decided but implicitly addressed by the setting aside of the transfer order.
The Tribunal held that the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) is a complete code and once a declaration is accepted, it attains finality. The PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 to revise a decision taken on such a declaration, as it would frustrate the scheme's objective.
The High Court held that the notice dated June 30, 2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was null and void as it was issued against a dead person. The court considered the death certificate and the fact that the revenue had been informed of the death prior to the issuance of the notice. The court's reasoning was based on the principle that legal proceedings, including the issuance of statutory notices, cannot be initiated against a person who is no longer alive. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148, when issued against a deceased individual, is a nullity. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed. However, the court clarified that this quashing would not preclude the revenue from initiating fresh proceedings if legally permissible.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the rental income from the IT Park was correctly treated as business income, following the Supreme Court's decision in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd vs. CIT.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, the appeal was disposed of on the ground of low tax effect, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
The Tribunal was correct in allowing the assessee's claim, as the decision in Goetze India Ltd. pertains to the Assessing Officer's powers, not appellate authorities. The High Court followed its own prior decisions on similar matters.
The Tribunal held that the AO had made a sufficient enquiry into the loss on film rights after issuing a specific notice and examining the assessee's explanations and documents. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 on the grounds of a lack of enquiry.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently established the creditworthiness and genuineness of the share investments. The investors were income tax assessees, paid via account payee cheques, and had substantial creditworthiness.
The Tribunal correctly deleted the addition under Section 14A as the assessee had no exempt income, and the addition under Section 68 was also justified as the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders.
The High Court found that the appeal filed by the revenue was below the threshold limit for tax effect as per CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on this ground.
The Tribunal rightly allowed the assessee's appeal because the lump sum contribution was neither an ordinary nor an initial contribution, and thus the prescribed limits under the rules did not apply. This payment was necessitated by exceptional circumstances to ensure the fund's ability to meet its obligations.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to doubt the genuineness of the trusts' activities. It also noted that donations to a corpus fund by a charitable trust are considered application of income, and the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal correctly held that the subsidy was a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt, as its purpose was to enable the setting up of new industrial units. Section 41(1) was also not applicable as the assessee had not claimed any deduction in earlier years.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to doubt the genuineness of the trusts' activities. It also noted that donations to a corpus fund by a charitable trust are considered application of income, and the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was without jurisdiction.
The High Court noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Rules. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to doubt the genuineness of the trusts' activities. It also noted that donations to a corpus fund by a charitable trust are considered application of income, and the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to doubt the genuineness of the trusts' activities. It also noted that donations to a corpus fund by a charitable trust are considered application of income, and the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to doubt the genuineness of the trusts' activities. It also noted that donations to a corpus fund by a charitable trust are considered application of income, and the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to doubt the genuineness of the trusts' activities. It also noted that donations to a corpus fund by a charitable trust are considered application of income, and the cancellation of registration with retrospective effect was without jurisdiction.
The High Court noted that the controversy was covered by a previous judgment of the same court in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court noted that the controversy was squarely covered by a previous judgment in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal rightly held that the surrender of tenancy rights for a consideration is assessable as capital gains, not business income. The payment made for acquiring the tenancy right was considered the cost of acquisition.
The High Court held that the Commissioner, while exercising powers under Section 263, cannot travel beyond the allegations made in the show cause notice. This principle was established by Supreme Court decisions.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, holding that the assessee company, being a different juristic entity after amalgamation, could not be taxed under Section 68 for the share capital and premium of the amalgamating companies. The amalgamating companies lose their identity upon amalgamation.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee availing the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme. The appeal was disposed of on this ground, leaving the substantial questions of law open.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had correctly affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings on factual aspects regarding the genuineness of share application money, the source of investments, and the allocation of interest costs.
The High Court allowed all the Writ Petitions. It held that the issues involved 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 this Court's own previous orders in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, 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 reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act and after complying with legal formalities.
The Tribunal correctly held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement and not a curable procedural irregularity. Therefore, the assessment order passed without such notice is invalid.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the appeal by following a previous judgment which decided similar substantial questions of law against the assessee.
The Tribunal correctly held that an unregistered development agreement has no legal effect for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and thus does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini was relied upon.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were left open as a consequence of the dismissal.
The Calcutta High Court held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order under challenge was passed by the Delhi Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable before this court.
The tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance was upheld, following a Supreme Court judgment. The court found that the assessee's entitlement to deduction should not be denied due to subsequent withdrawal of approval from the research organization.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the revenue itself on the ground of low tax effect.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that the ITAT's decision regarding Section 80IB deductions was consistent with established legal precedents. The court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. For the first issue, the Tribunal's decision was sustained based on the Assessing Officer's remand report. For the second issue, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
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 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 this Court's own previous judgments in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the High Court 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, rendering them bad in law 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 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 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.