Loading High Court cases…
623 orders · Page 11 of 13
The High Court dismissed the appeal, primarily due to the inordinate delay in re-filing, finding the Revenue's explanation unsatisfactory. Even on merits, the Court found no substantial question of law.
The High Court was not persuaded that the assessee failed to disclose full and true particulars. Therefore, the cancellation of penalty by the ITAT was not considered perverse.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Director of Income Tax. The judgment refers to a detailed decision in ITA 473/2012, pronounced on the same date. While the specific reasoning for dismissing these appeals is not elaborated in this excerpt, it is implied that the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's contentions, upholding the ITAT's decision. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeals. The specific issues regarding royalty and fees for technical services were decided in favour of the assessees by the ITAT, and this decision was affirmed by the High Court.
The High Court found that awarding compensation for both 'Loss of Income' and 'Loss of Leaves' for overlapping periods was duplicative and modified the award to grant only one month's salary under 'Loss of Income'. It also reduced future prospects from 50% to 30% as per Supreme Court guidelines. The issue of income tax deduction was remanded back to the Tribunal.
The High Court held that the income derived from data transmission services was not royalty under the applicable DTAAs, especially for assessment years preceding the Finance Act of 2012. Amendments to domestic law alone do not alter treaty interpretations unless the treaty itself is amended.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Director of Income Tax. The judgment explicitly states that for detailed reasoning, reference should be made to the decision dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 473/2012. This implies that the High Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeals and upheld the ITAT's decision in favour of the assessees. The ratio decidendi would likely be that the income derived from providing satellite transponder capacity by non-resident entities, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment in India and not falling within the definition of royalty under the applicable DTAA, is not taxable in India. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Director of Income Tax. The judgment refers to a detailed decision dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 473/2012. While the specific reasoning for dismissing these appeals is not detailed in this excerpt, it is implied that the High Court found no merit in the revenue's contentions. The dismissal suggests that the High Court agreed with the ITAT's findings, which likely held that the income in question was not taxable in India as royalty or business income attributable to a Permanent Establishment. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeals, with no order as to costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Director of Income Tax. The judgment refers to a detailed decision dated 08.02.2016 in ITA 473/2012. While the specific reasoning for dismissing these appeals is not detailed in this excerpt, it is implied that the High Court found no merit in the revenue's contentions. The dismissal suggests that the High Court agreed with the ITAT's findings, which likely held that the income in question was not taxable in India as royalty or business income attributable to a Permanent Establishment. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeals, with no order as to costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of commission payments. The disallowance of commission was upheld, and the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were justified.
The Delhi High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing, stating that sufficient notice was given for the changes in court fees and soft copy filing. The court emphasized the department's responsibility to follow up on filings.
The ITAT correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68. While the assessee received commission, the ITAT upheld additions to the extent of this commission, finding no substantial question of law for the Revenue's appeal.
The Delhi High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing, noting that the Court Fees Act was amended much earlier and sufficient notice was given for soft copy filings. The court emphasized the department's responsibility to follow up on appeals.
The High Court held that the delay of 1247 days in re-filing the appeal was extraordinary and wholly unacceptable. The Court reasoned that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was provided for adaptation. Furthermore, the Court had made provisions, such as scanning machines at the filing counter, to assist the bar. Therefore, the explanation offered by the appellant was not sufficient to justify such a significant delay. The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal itself. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal due to the significant delay in re-filing. Furthermore, on merits, the court found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer had been deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT, and the ITAT's order in a related case was upheld by the Bombay High Court.
The Tribunal's finding of rash and negligent driving by the offending vehicle was upheld. However, the compensation was modified by deducting income tax, adjusting future prospects for self-employed individuals, and reducing non-pecuniary damages as per Supreme Court judgments.
The Delhi High Court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory and unacceptable. The court noted the lack of follow-up by the Department and the supervision of a Deputy CIT.
The Delhi High Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing, noting that the Court Fees Act was amended much earlier and sufficient notice was given for soft copy filings. The court emphasized the department's responsibility to follow up on appeals.
The Court found the reasons for the delay unconvincing and noted that sufficient notice and arrangements were made. The Court also found no substantial question of law arising on merits.
The High Court held that the delay of 825 days in re-filing the appeal was extraordinary and wholly unacceptable. The Court observed that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was given for adaptation, and that scanning machines were provided at the filing counter to facilitate the transition. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the substantive appeal was decided.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay (CM No.965/2016). The Court found the explanation offered by the Revenue for the delay of over two years to be wholly unacceptable. The Court noted that the practice directions for e-filing were issued after consultation with the bar and sufficient time was provided for adaptation. Furthermore, scanning machines were made available at the filing counter to assist the bar. As a consequence of dismissing the delay condonation application, the appeal itself was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the substantive appeal.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessee had a PE in India, the income from fabrication and supply of platforms done overseas was separable and not taxable in India. The High Court upheld this view, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessee had a PE in India, the income from fabrication and supply of platforms done overseas was separable and not taxable in India. The High Court upheld this view, finding no infirmity.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no substantial question of law. The Court declined to refer the case to a larger bench, reaffirming its earlier judgment in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT.
The High Court dismissed the appeals, finding the reason for the delay unconvincing and also noting that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by a previous decision in the assessee's own case.
The High Court held that a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi due to the advance payment made there. The court also found that the university failed to prove the bills were not genuine or that procedures were violated.
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The Court found the explanation provided by the revenue for the inordinate delay of 1090 days to be unconvincing. It was observed that it is improbable that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals for almost three years. The Court highlighted the existence of a dedicated cell in the High Court supervised by a Deputy CIT, which should be responsible for tracking appeals and ensuring timely re-filing. The Court stated that the standard excuse of change of counsel and lack of communication was not acceptable. Consequently, as the delay condonation application was dismissed, the appeal itself was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessee had a PE in India, the income from fabrication and supply of platforms done overseas was separable and not taxable in India. The High Court upheld this view, finding no infirmity.
The High Court upheld the tribunal's finding of negligence against the truck driver for parking without caution. It also affirmed the contributory negligence of the car driver, but modified the compensation amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damages.
The tribunal found that the substituted service by publication was illegal as proper attempts to serve the petitioner were not made, and the notice was sent to a wrong address. The petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to present his case.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Citing Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Revenue's counsel stated that they did not wish to press the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. No decision was made on the merits of the case. Any dates previously fixed for the hearing of the appeal were cancelled.
The High Court found that the ITAT had elaborately discussed all issues raised by the CIT with reference to the evidence. The Court was not persuaded that the ITAT's order was perverse or that any substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessee had a PE in India, the income from fabrication and supply of platforms done overseas was separable and not taxable in India. The High Court upheld this view, finding no infirmity.
The Tribunal held that while the Assessee might have a PE in India for installation activities, the income from fabrication and supply of platforms done outside India was separable and not taxable in India. The High Court upheld this view, finding no infirmity.
The Court accepted the undertaking of the respondent company that TDS in relation to the subject contract with the petitioner has been deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Authorities in accordance with law, and that a TDS certificate (Form 16A) would be furnished to the petitioner in due course. Based on this, the Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to decide the issue afresh, including the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, in light of the court's directions in a previous case.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 153C, the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of search. Therefore, assessments for AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03 were barred by limitation.
The High Court determined that the market value of the acquired land should be Rs. 2,07,500 per Bigha. This enhanced compensation was to be applied uniformly to all similarly acquired land in the four villages mentioned, including those who had not initially applied for enhanced compensation.
The High Court held that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10th December 2015, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 20 lakhs should be treated as not pressed, the present appeal falls under this category. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 153C, the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of search. Therefore, assessments for AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03 were barred by limitation.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT was directed to decide the issue afresh, including the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, in light of the court's directions in a previous case.
The Tribunal held that for the purpose of Section 153C, the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of search. Therefore, assessments for AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03 were barred by limitation.
The High Court of Delhi, after hearing some arguments from the learned counsel for the Assessee, granted leave to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of any issue was made. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that for assessment years preceding the search, the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessee's Assessing Officer is considered the date of search. Therefore, reopening assessments for AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03 was barred by limitation.
The Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty as the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that taxes would be paid by the Ministry of Tourism as per the agreement. The appended notes to the returns also indicated no intent to conceal.