Loading High Court cases…
176 orders · Page 2 of 4
The tribunal found that the insurance company failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The court also revised the compensation amount based on the deceased's revised pay structure and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation.
The Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of not filing Form 10CCB, especially when the deduction was allowed in the initial year and subsequent years. The PCIT's order was also flawed as it did not consider the assessee's submissions and evidence.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A/143(3) can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. In the absence of such material for an unabated assessment, no additions can be made.
The Tribunal was justified in quashing the Section 263 order as it was barred by limitation. The issue sought to be revised was not part of the original assessment or the first revisionary proceedings.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the issues raised by the revenue were primarily factual and did not involve substantial questions of law, affirming the ITAT's decision.
The High Court held that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to compel the petitioner to sign disputed financial statements, as it could lead to self-incrimination under the Income Tax Act and was beyond the scope of interim relief. The court set aside the arbitrator's order.
The High Court found that the lower authorities, including the ITAT, failed to analyze the facts to determine if the principle of mutuality was maintained in the transaction between the club and Reliance. Therefore, the impugned order of the tribunal was set aside.
The High Court found that the lower authorities, including the ITAT, failed to analyze the facts to determine if the principle of mutuality was maintained in the transaction between the club and Reliance. Therefore, the impugned order of the tribunal was set aside.
The court acknowledged the submission of a copy of the application and the filing of affidavits. The matter was adjourned for further hearing.
The Tribunal held that interest on personal loans used for business purposes is deductible and that the CT Scan machine is eligible for higher depreciation. However, the High Court modified the depreciation to 15% and directed a revision of the assessment order regarding the calculation of tax, penalty, and interest in relation to TDS.
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 Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalties, finding the imposition illegal. This was based on the fact that the show cause notice was defective as relevant portions were not struck off, aligning with High Court and Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court held that a show-cause notice for penalty must clearly specify the charges against the assessee. Since the notice failed to identify the specific ground for penalty, it was declared invalid and a nullity.
The High Court admitted the appeal and ordered that the interlocutory application be reconsidered by the learned single judge. The judge must consider the affidavit-in-opposition and hear the appellant's counsel before deciding on the continuance, variation, or vacation of the impugned order.
The High Court held that the AO failed to adhere to the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. regarding passing a speaking order on objections to reassessment. Therefore, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal were justified in their decisions.
The Tribunal had examined the facts and found that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner was not in accordance with law.
The High Court found the ITAT's order to be non-speaking as it merely extracted a previous decision without independent reasoning. The court held that the ITAT, as the last fact-finding authority, must record reasons for its findings.
The High Court, upon being informed by the appellant's counsel that the disputes have been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and this position being confirmed by the respondent's counsel, accepted the submission. The Court noted that the appellant, on instructions, was not desirous of prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as 'not pressed'. The Court also directed that the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant be returned to the petitioner within 10 days of the communication of the order. The interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original appeal was decided.
The tribunal found a violation of natural justice regarding the first allegation as the basis of information was not disclosed. For the other two allegations, the assessee's explanation needed consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act was applicable as the sales tax liability crystallized in AY 2013-14 and was paid during that year. Therefore, the assessee was rightly allowed the deduction.
The High Court dismissed the department's application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The court found that the reasons provided were insufficient and that the department could not rely on Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods that applied after the original limitation had already expired.
The High Court, following the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell [P] Ltd., held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. In the absence of such material for unabated assessments, no additions can be made.
The High Court found that the writ petition should be heard and decided on merits after the Department files its affidavit. The order of the Learned Single Bench allowing the writ petition at the admission stage was set aside.
The High Court held that the scope of assessment under Section 153A is governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. The AO can only assess or reassess in the absence of incriminating material for completed/unabated assessments if conditions under Sections 147/148 are met.
The High Court followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, holding that assessments under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is unearthed during a search. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed, though reassessment under Sections 147/148 is permissible.
The High Court held that assessment under Section 153A is permissible only if incriminating material is found during a search or requisition. In the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be reassessed under Section 153A, though powers under Sections 147/148 are saved.
The High Court held that the scope of assessment under Section 153A is governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell [P] Ltd. In the absence of incriminating material found during a search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess completed assessments under Section 153A.
The High Court, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess income for completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A.
The tribunal treated the application under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, and allowed the development agreement with specific conditions to protect the deities' interests and ensure their continued worship.
The High Court followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., which clarified that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, no additions can be made to completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A.
The tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, stating that assessments under Section 153A are abated. Additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search, otherwise, completed assessments remain unaffected.
The High Court followed the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, stating that assessment under Section 153A is permissible only if incriminating material is found during a search. In the absence of such material for unabated assessments, no additions can be made under Section 153A.
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 held that the assessment under Section 153A is limited to cases where incriminating material is found during a search or requisition. In the absence of such material, no additions can be made to completed or unabated assessments under Section 153A.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, the Assessing Officer cannot assess or reassess income for completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A. Such assessments can only be reopened under Sections 147/148 if conditions are met.
The High Court, following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search, no additions can be made to completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A. Such assessments can only be re-opened under Sections 147/148 if conditions are met.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. The Court found no acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. The Court found no acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay. The Court found no acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.
The tribunal held that the assessing officer erred in making a substantive addition without considering the evidence presented by the assessee. The tribunal found that the source of funds in the bank accounts was sufficiently explained as originating from Shaw Wallace and its subsidiaries.
The Tribunal held that prior period expenses crystallized during the year are allowable. It also found that the provision for diminution in investment value, being in the nature of a write-off, should not be added back to book profit.
The Tribunal ought to have granted relief to the assessee and set aside the PCIT's order. The PCIT's satisfaction that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was not properly recorded, and the AO had conducted due verification.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income based on the principle of consistency. The court also affirmed the Tribunal's ruling on the non-applicability of Section 14A disallowances to exempt income.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income based on the principle of consistency. The court also affirmed the Tribunal's ruling on the non-applicability of Section 14A disallowances to exempt income.
The tribunal held that the ex parte proceedings were unsustainable as the notice under Section 148 was served at the old address despite the department being aware of the change. Consequently, the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to present their case.
The tribunal rightly held that a mere procedural irregularity, such as the non-submission of Form 10CCB along with the return, is not fatal to claiming deduction under Section 80-IC. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The High Court held that issues concerning transfer pricing and depreciation on intellectual property were decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years and followed those decisions. The court also found that issues regarding inventory obsolescence and warranty provision were purely factual, with the ITAT having made findings of fact in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of undisclosed investment and profit on undisclosed sales, restricting the addition. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.
The High Court modified the award, recalculating the compensation based on the deceased's income, future prospects, and a multiplier. The court upheld the involvement of the offending vehicle and the notional income of Rs. 6000/- per month.
The High Court found the delay in filing the claim acceptable due to the victim's medical treatment and care for their son. It upheld the Income Tax Return as a valid basis for income assessment and confirmed the vehicle's permit was valid during the accident period.