Calcutta High Court Judgments — 2023

The Tribunal's decision to allow maintenance and depreciation on aircrafts, and deduction of lease rent for vehicles was upheld. The court found the aircrafts were used for business, and lease rent was a deductible revenue expenditure based on Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal found that the loans were advanced from the assessee's own funds, generated from sources like share sales, and not from borrowed capital. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings of fact based on the evidence presented.

The High Court held that the exemption from trade tax on sales turnover, availed by the assessee, was not a capital receipt but a revenue receipt. The court found that the ITAT had erred in treating the exempted trade tax component as a subsidy or capital receipt.

The Tribunal held that the income derived from sub-licensing of the property, given the assessee's objects and consistent practice, is business income and not income from house property. The court affirmed that the nature of the activity, not just the asset, determines if it's business income.

The High Court at Calcutta, Original Side, dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department (appellant). The counsel stated that the tax effect involved in this case was less than the monetary limit for filing an appeal as prescribed in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. In view of this submission, the Court found no reason to proceed with the appeal on merits and accordingly dismissed it. No specific finding on the substantive issues of the assessment was recorded, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground related to the tax effect.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed. This was due to the tax effect being below the minimum prescribed limit as per Circular No. 17/2019.

The High Court held that the explanation for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory. It further noted that the benefit of the Supreme Court's order on limitation due to Covid-19 was not applicable as the original limitation period had expired much prior to the extension. The Court also found that the ITAT had re-appreciated the facts and affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, which was factually stronger than a cited precedent.

The High Court held that the intimation letter providing the DIN along with a manually issued order under Section 263 does not satisfy the categorical requirement of incorporating the DIN within the order itself, as mandated by the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the order was invalid.

The Tribunal concluded that the claim of long-term capital gain from the sale of shares was bogus, considering the drastic price increase without sufficient reason and the findings of a tax evasion scam. The High Court found no grounds to differ from the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal had elaborately examined the facts and found that the subscribers had furnished all necessary documents, including financial statements and bank statements, to establish their identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction.

The High Court considered the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department. The counsel stated that the tax effect in this case was below the monetary limit for filing an appeal as stipulated in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019. Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to proceed with the appeal on merits. The Court accepted the contention of the revenue that the appeal did not meet the threshold for filing as per the circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No other issues were decided on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the interest income earned by the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment covering the substantial question of law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot unilaterally deny exemption or deem the fund's recognition withdrawn. Only the competent authority, following due procedure, can withdraw approval.

The High Court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as a component of cruelty and desertion, is a valid ground for divorce. The court found that cruelty and desertion were established by the wife.

The Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application as the explanation for a significant portion of the delay was found to be insufficient. Consequently, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal (ITA/110/2010) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The dismissal was based on two primary reasons. Firstly, both parties jointly submitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019, which governs the filing of appeals by the Department. Secondly, the Court observed that the appellant had failed to file the paper book, despite a clear direction given by the Court on December 23, 2015. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on these procedural and administrative grounds, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's decision or the substantive legal issue raised.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and answered the substantial question of law against the revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the respondent assessee stated that the question involved is squarely covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2022) and a judgment of a coordinate Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Damodar Valley Corporation (2022). Furthermore, the assessee pointed out that a similar Income Tax Appeal filed by the revenue, ITA/116/2019, was decided and dismissed by this Court on 24.11.2023. In view of these submissions and the dismissal of the similar appeal, the Court found no reason to deviate from the established precedents. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal's decision was upheld, as the waived loan was not in the nature of a cash receipt for Section 28(iv) and did not constitute a cessation of trading liability for Section 41(1). The Supreme Court's judgment in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. was relied upon.

The High Court held that the tax effect in the present appeal is indeed much less than the monetary limit fixed under Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals by the Income Tax Department. Consequently, the Court found that the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No other issues were decided on merits.

The High Court held that the tax effect in the present appeal filed by the Income Tax Department is much less than the monetary limit fixed under Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. Consequently, the Court found that the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue, where the tax effect falls below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT circulars, are liable to be dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal (ITA/63/2014). No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court, upon joint production of Form-5 by both learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (assessee), noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the "Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme". Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal (ITA No. 49 of 2011). The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memorandum of appeal, were left open. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal based on the settlement under the Vivad-se-Viswas Scheme.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. The Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit for filing appeals as per Circular No. 17/2019. The learned counsel for the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal in terms of being below the monetary limit fixed under the aforesaid Circular for filing of the appeal. The ratio of the decision is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits are not entertainable, irrespective of the merits of the case, as per departmental circulars.

The High Court at Calcutta, upon hearing the joint submission of both the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (assessee), allowed the oral request for correction. The Court directed that in the second line at page 2 of the order dated 24.11.2023, the figures '2005-06' appearing after the words 'assessment year' shall be deleted and in their place, the figures '2004-05' shall be substituted. The order dated 24.11.2023 has been corrected accordingly. The Court also directed that a certified copy of the order, if already issued, shall be corrected by the office. No other issues were decided on merits.

The Tribunal's award was modified after considering the taxability of the deceased's income and adjusting for future prospects and general damages. The interest rate was also increased.

The High Court held that the rejection of applications for 2016-17 and 2017-18 due to delay was improper as the revisional authority failed to consider the power to condone delay. The rejection of the 2018-19 application on merits was also set aside as a crucial aspect regarding holding excess remuneration in trust was not considered.

The High Court found no substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT order. The Tribunal had upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that reopening the assessment was unsustainable, particularly as the Assessing Officer did not record reasons for believing there was a failure to disclose material facts before initiating reassessment beyond four years.

The Tribunal had deleted additions based on seized documents, finding that the handwriting was unverified and no matching assets were found. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remanding the matter for re-examination.

The Tribunal correctly held that the incentive was in the nature of a capital receipt, intended to encourage industrial development and setting up new units. The form of the subsidy is irrelevant; the purpose test dictates its character.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

The High Court found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's findings on facts were reasonable and plausible. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for interference.

The High Court held that the ITAT's dismissal for non-appearance was not appropriate as the CIT(A) had considered the assessee's submissions and documents. The matter was remanded to the ITAT for a fresh consideration on merits.

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding no reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.

The Tribunal held that periphery development expenses incurred prior to Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowable as business expenditure if wholly and exclusively for business purposes, as the amendment to Section 37(1) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was due to a bona fide mistake and not negligence. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 2/2020, which empowers the Commissioner to admit belated applications.

The High Court held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were distinct and unrelated to prior proceedings, thus the department had jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148A(b) and proceed. The appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Section 263 order was invalid as it did not incorporate the DIN as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The intimation letter alone was not sufficient compliance.

The High Court found that the Tribunal's order was flawed as it did not properly inquire into essential facts regarding whether the agreements constituted capital creation or a source of income. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Revenue's appeal because the assessment order sought to be revised under Section 263 was already quashed by the Tribunal. Therefore, there was no valid order to revise.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the case.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the limited scrutiny issues before obtaining approval for complete scrutiny was impermissible. This was in contravention of CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2016.

The High Court found the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal to be perverse due to a lack of proper factual examination. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The High Court refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The court found that the explanation provided by the Revenue regarding the COVID-19 pandemic was not applicable as the delay occurred before the lockdown period.