Loading High Court cases…
976 orders · Page 10 of 20
The High Court observed that the Revenue's contention regarding the non-consideration of Circular No. 21/2015 by the Tribunal warranted attention. Instead of deciding the appeal on merits, the Court directed the Revenue to file an application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Tribunal. This section allows for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. The Court stated that if the application under Section 254(2) is not entertained or is dismissed, the Revenue would be at liberty to revive the present appeal before the High Court. Consequently, no notice was issued on the application for condonation of delay at this stage. The appeal was disposed of with this liberty.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to remand the issue of operating expenses to the AO. However, regarding the rate of depreciation on bottles and crates, the High Court directed the ITAT to re-examine the issue afresh.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the issue of operating expenses to the Assessing Officer. However, regarding the rate of depreciation on bottles and crates, the High Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the issue afresh.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the issue of operating expenses to the Assessing Officer. However, regarding the rate of depreciation on bottles and crates, the High Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the issue afresh.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's remand order for unverified purchases from related parties. However, it set aside the remand for unverified fixed assets and depreciation, directing the ITAT to examine the matter afresh based on the documents submitted.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's remand order for unverified purchases from related parties. However, it set aside the remand for unverified fixed assets and depreciation, directing the ITAT to examine the matter afresh based on the documents submitted.
The High Court upheld the remand for operating expenses, agreeing with the Tribunal's decision to re-examine the matter at the lower level. However, for the depreciation on bottles and crates, the High Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine the issue afresh.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to remand the issue of operating expenses to the AO. However, regarding the rate of depreciation on bottles and crates, the High Court directed the ITAT to re-examine the issue afresh.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to remand the issue of operating expenses to the AO. However, regarding the rate of depreciation on bottles and crates, the High Court directed the ITAT to re-examine the issue afresh.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to remand the issue of operating expenses to the AO. However, regarding the rate of depreciation on bottles and crates, the High Court directed the ITAT to re-examine the issue afresh.
The Tribunal took the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue on record. The appeals were disposed of without answering the substantial questions of law, which were expressly left open. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No. 3/2018, which permits withdrawal or non-prosecution of appeals below a certain monetary limit. Therefore, no decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court took the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue on record. The Court disposed of the appeals without answering the substantial questions of law. These questions were expressly left open. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No. 3/2018, which permits the Revenue to not press appeals where the tax effect is below a certain amount, allowing the substantial questions of law to remain undecided. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case.
The Delhi High Court, in its order dated August 20, 2018, decided not to entertain the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court cited its own decision in Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Am. (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Delhi) as a basis for not entertaining the appeal. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appeal appeared 'misconceived'. The impugned order dated March 6, 2018, was a first order granting stay and not an order continuing a stay beyond 360 days. The High Court dismissed the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal itself was dismissed.
The High Court held that the period of special audit is to be excluded when computing the limitation period for passing an assessment order. The first proviso to Section 153 also extends the limitation period to 60 days if less than that remains after exclusions.
The High Court of Delhi recorded the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue. Based on this statement, the Court disposed of the appeals without answering the substantial question of law. The substantial question of law was expressly left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as per the stated position of the Revenue, in line with Circular No. 3/2018.
The High Court of Delhi recorded the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue. Based on this statement, the Court disposed of the appeals without answering the substantial question of law. The substantial question of law was expressly left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as per the stated position of the Revenue, in line with Circular No. 3/2018.
The High Court held that being capable of earning does not automatically disentitle a wife to maintenance, and receiving maintenance under one law does not preclude seeking it under another. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable. The Court observed that the Revenue had sought adjournments on two previous occasions when the matter was listed before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the Court found it inappropriate for the Revenue to challenge an order extending the stay, especially when the Revenue was responsible for the delay. The Court expressed doubt about the maintainability of an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act in such a scenario. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court, upon recording the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50,00,000/- and in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, disposed of the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that the appeal is disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, and the same is left open. The reasoning is solely based on the Revenue's submission and the applicability of the circular, which provides for the withdrawal or disposal of appeals with a low tax effect without deciding the merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be disposed of on the basis of tax effect thresholds specified in administrative circulars, without adjudicating the substantial question of law, if so requested by the revenue and permitted by the circular.
The High Court found it inexpedient to entertain the appeals as rectification applications were pending before the ITAT. The court noted the potential error regarding the remuneration payment and directed the ITAT to consider it.
The High Court found it inexpedient to entertain the appeals as rectification applications were pending before the ITAT. The court noted the potential error regarding the remuneration payment and directed the ITAT to consider it.
The High Court found it inexpedient to entertain the appeals as rectification applications were pending before the ITAT. The court noted the potential error regarding the remuneration payment and directed the ITAT to consider it.
The High Court found it inexpedient to entertain the appeals as rectification applications were pending before the ITAT. The court noted the potential error regarding the remuneration payment and directed the ITAT to consider it.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271B, finding that the appellant deliberately failed to get his accounts audited as required by Section 44AB. The fabricated audit report and claims of misplaced books of account were not accepted.
The High Court upheld the interim maintenance order, finding no infirmity in the lower courts' decisions. The courts drew adverse inferences against the petitioner due to his failure to truthfully disclose his income and assets.
The High Court held that the appeal has been rendered infructuous on account of low tax effect. This decision was based on Circular No. 10/2018 dated July 11, 2018, which increased the threshold for the Revenue to approach the High Court under Section 268 of the Act to ₹50 lakhs. The disputed amount of ₹39,36,780/- falls below this revised threshold. The Court noted that the circular is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the application for withdrawal was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed. However, the question of law framed earlier was expressly kept open.
The High Court of Delhi, recording the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue, disposed of the appeals without answering the substantial questions of law. The substantial questions of law were left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals on the basis of the stated tax effect and the circular, without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law. No specific finding was given on any issue, and no relief was granted or denied on the merits. The next date of hearing was cancelled.
The High Court of Delhi, recording the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue, disposed of the appeals without answering the substantial questions of law. The substantial questions of law were left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals on the basis of the stated tax effect and the circular, without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law. No specific finding was given on any issue, and no relief was granted or denied on the merits. The next date of hearing was cancelled.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case is below Rs. 50 lacs. Citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which permits disposal of appeals without answering the substantial question of law when the tax effect is below a certain threshold, the Court decided to dispose of the appeal on this basis. The substantial question of law was expressly left unanswered. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal without answering the substantial question of law. No finding was reached on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the question of law framed in ITA 461/2017 & ITA 526/2017 was decided against the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeals. Concurrently, the question of law framed in ITA 590/2017 & ITA 82/2018 was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, resulting in the dismissal of the revenue's appeals. The reasoning for these decisions is not provided in this excerpt, as the court refers to a detailed judgment dated 09.08.2018 in ITA 461/2017 for further explanation. The operative direction for all appeals is dismissal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Delhi has decided the questions of law framed in the appeals. For ITA 461/2017 and ITA 526/2017, the question of law was answered against the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeals. For ITA 590/2017 and ITA 82/2018, the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals. The reasoning behind these decisions and the specific ratio decidendi are not provided in this excerpt, which directs reference to the judgment in ITA 461/2017 dated August 9, 2018, for detailed reasoning. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Court acknowledged the adjournment request from the respondents and did not object. Consequently, the cases were adjourned to a future date for further proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the addition, finding the assessee's cash flow statement unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of supporting evidence for construction expenses. The court agreed that the explanation for the cash deposits was concocted and not supported by material on record.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without answering the substantial questions of law raised. This decision was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lacs, and in accordance with Circular No. 3/2018, such matters need not be adjudicated on merits. The Court explicitly clarified that the questions of law have been left open. Therefore, there is no finding on any specific issue, nor any operative directions issued by the High Court on the merits of the case. The appeal was disposed of based on administrative instructions regarding tax effect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had acted in good faith and with due diligence in excluding the internal comparable transaction. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the issue was debatable and the assessee discharged its onus.
The Delhi High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable. This decision was based on the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue regarding the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Court noted that the tax effect in respect of the relevant assessment years was below the prescribed amount of ₹50 lacs. Consequently, in view of the statement and the terms of the CBDT Circular, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue, where the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in a subsequent CBDT circular, are to be dismissed as not maintainable.
The Delhi High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable. This decision was based on the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue regarding the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Court noted that the tax effect in respect of the relevant assessment years was below the prescribed amount of ₹50 lacs. Consequently, in view of the statement and the terms of the CBDT Circular, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue, where the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in a subsequent CBDT circular, are to be dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination of all interconnected issues. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order of remand.
The High Court found the question of whether the assessee was an Indian company was substantial and went to the root of the matter. It directed the ITAT to re-examine this issue, considering the assessee's status and the applicability of relevant provisions.
The Tribunal noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue that the tax effect in each of the appeals was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. In accordance with Circular No. 3/2018, dated 11.07.2018, the Revenue stated they would not press the appeals and requested that the questions of law be left open. Recording this statement, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals without answering any substantial questions of law, leaving them open. Consequently, notice was not issued on the application for condonation of delay (CM No. 14347/2018 in ITA No. 433/2018). The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as per the stated position.