Calcutta High Court Judgments — 2024

The Tribunal held that the assessing officer had not pointed out any specific deficiencies in the identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness of the share transactions. The High Court found the matter to be entirely factual and no substantial question of law arose.

The High Court held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to contest the matter on merits before the ITAT. The impugned order of the ITAT was set aside, and the appeal was restored to its file for a fresh hearing.

The tribunal held that the defendant's defense was sham and that the preponderance of facts supported the plaintiff's case. The court found sufficient admissions to grant a judgment on admission for the principal sum.

The High Court found that the assessee was not indifferent and had shown diligence by filing a paper book. Considering the peculiar facts, the High Court decided to remand the matter back to the ITAT for fresh consideration.

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was aware of the amalgamation when initiating proceedings, as evidenced by the reasons for belief. Therefore, the revenue's contention that the fact of amalgamation was suppressed was factually incorrect.

The High Court found no fault with the ITAT dismissing the miscellaneous application as it was time-barred. The court noted that the ITAT's earlier order allowing the assessee's appeal and remanding the matter was based on case law that is no longer good law after the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services.

The tribunal was justified in concluding that the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving. The dependency of the claimants on the deceased's income was also established.

The High Court held that the assessee had submitted to the jurisdiction and contested the matter on merits without raising objections to the notice's form. Therefore, it was too late to contend the notice was defective. The ITAT ought to have considered this aspect.

The High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The substantial questions of law were left open.

The tribunal held that the assessee's agreement with Kakinada Sea Port Limited (KSPL), which had a concession agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the port certificate issued by the government authority satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The court agreed with the tribunal's findings.

The High Court held that the Industrial Promotion Assistance incentive, given for setting up new industrial units or expansion, is a capital receipt. The purpose of the subsidy, not its form or timing, determines its nature.

The tribunal held that the assessee's agreement with Kakinada Sea Port Limited (KSPL), which had a concession agreement with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the port certificate issued by the government authority satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The court agreed with the tribunal's findings.

The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal was justified in setting aside the addition as the share capital was not raised in the assessment year in dispute.

The High Court disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, as it was below the threshold limit fixed by CBDT circular. The substantial questions of law raised by the revenue were left open.

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, the appeal was disposed of on the ground of low tax effect as it was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised is squarely covered by a Supreme Court decision. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The ITAT had correctly affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment order was passed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed by Section 153.

The Tribunal modified the compensation amount by considering the last income tax return, a multiplier of 7, and including medical expenses. The insurance company was not permitted to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

The High Court held that the controversy was covered by a previous judgment involving the same assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, with the substantial questions of law answered in favor of the assessee.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law is concluded against the Revenue by previous judgments. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

The High Court held that LIC Mutual Fund is not a public financial institution as defined under Section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with disallowance of interest payable to public financial institutions, is not attracted.

The Tribunal held that registration under Section 12AA cannot be refused solely on the ground that the trust has not yet commenced its charitable activities. The Commissioner must be satisfied about the genuineness of the objects and proposed activities.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue did not arise from the ITAT's order, as the Tribunal's decision was based on limitation. Therefore, the appeal could not be entertained.

The High Court held that the receipt of Rs. 32.42 crore was a revenue receipt, not a capital receipt. The ITAT's finding that it constituted long-term capital gain was considered perverse.

The Tribunal held that while the process was manufacturing, the product was excluded from deduction due to the Thirteenth Schedule. However, the High Court found that 'pan masala' was not explicitly excluded for Sikkim in Part A of the Thirteenth Schedule, unlike in Part B for other states.

The Tribunal held that while the process was manufacturing, the product was excluded from deduction due to the Thirteenth Schedule. However, the High Court found that 'pan masala' was not explicitly excluded for Sikkim in Part A of the Thirteenth Schedule, unlike in Part B for other states.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for cancelling registration under Section 12AA(3) were not met, as there was no evidence that the trust's activities were not genuine or not in accordance with its objects. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of income at 8% net profit on gross receipts was justified, considering the principles of best judgment assessment and the facts of the case, including the assessee's own acceptance of this rate.

The High Court, following its previous judgment in a similar case, agreed that the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal's decision on the validity of the penalty proceeding was to be reconsidered.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. The court noted that one creditor had not filed a return and the other's cash deposits were doubtful without financial statements.

The High Court found no substantial question of law arose. It held that it could not re-examine factual issues not placed before lower authorities and that reliance on SEBI orders was misplaced as they did not examine the assessee's specific transactions.

The High Court held that the order under Section 148A(d) provided sufficient reasons for its conclusion. It further stated that the veracity of the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the three factors (identity, genuineness, creditworthiness) requires deeper factual examination, which cannot be undertaken in a writ petition.

The High Court found that the appeal had become infructuous due to the company's liquidation and the approval of its resolution plan. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Court directed that the name of Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned advocate, be recorded in the appearance portion of the order dated December 15, 2022, for the respondents in ITA/19/2017, ITA/20/2017, ITA/21/2017, and ITA/22/2017.

The Court directed that the name of Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned advocate, be recorded in the appearance portion of the order dated December 15, 2022, for the respondents in ITA/19/2017, ITA/20/2017, ITA/21/2017, and ITA/22/2017.

The Court directed that the name of Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned advocate, be recorded in the appearance portion of the order dated December 15, 2022, for the respondents in ITA/19/2017, ITA/20/2017, ITA/21/2017, and ITA/22/2017.

The High Court held that in view of the settlement of the matter by the assessee under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, as evidenced by Form-V dated 17.07.2020, the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax was not required to be proceeded with further. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the legislative intent of the Vivad se Vishwas Act, which aims to settle disputes. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal and all connected applications. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was resolved based on the settlement.

The High Court noted that the assessee, on instruction, submitted that the matter has been settled under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and consequently, the appeal has become infructuous. A certificate under Section 5(1) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was produced and kept on record. In view of this settlement, the Court disposed of the appeal. The substantial question of law regarding the forfeiture of the right to challenge the fresh assessment order was not decided on merits due to the settlement. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal.

The Court directed that the name of Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, learned advocate, be recorded in the appearance portion of the order dated December 15, 2022, for the respondents in ITA/19/2017, ITA/20/2017, ITA/21/2017, and ITA/22/2017.

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order, noting that the ITAT had followed its own prior decisions on identical controversies for the same assessee. Both substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.

The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. The factual findings of the ITAT, which supported the assessee's position, could not be dislodged by the revenue.

The High Court dismissed the department's appeals due to the inordinate delay and lack of acceptable explanation. The court found the issues to be primarily factual and noted that the Tribunal's order was supported by High Court decisions in favor of the assessee.

The High Court noted subsequent developments and that the ITAT order had been given effect to. Consequently, no further adjudication was required on the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal.

The High Court dismissed the department's appeals due to the inordinate delay and lack of acceptable explanation. The court found the issues to be primarily factual and noted that the Tribunal's order was supported by High Court decisions in favor of the assessee.

The High Court noted that subsequent developments had rendered the substantial questions of law moot. An order giving effect to the ITAT's decision had already been passed, leaving nothing further to adjudicate.