Loading High Court cases…
976 orders · Page 3 of 20
The Tribunal's finding that the permanent disability was not attributable to the accident was upheld. However, the compensation for pain, suffering, trauma, and attendant charges was enhanced.
The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of assessment in the wrong name and the applicability of Section 292B. The High Court did not adjudicate on merits.
The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of assessment in the wrong name and the applicability of Section 292B. The High Court did not adjudicate on merits.
The High Court held that income from sharing fibre cables and cell sites, as well as cheque bounce and late payment charges, are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(2A) as they are relatable to the telecommunication business. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision.
The High Court held that income from sharing fibre cables and cell sites, as well as cheque bounce and late payment charges, are eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(2A) as they are relatable to the telecommunication business. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal by stating that the issue concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is covered by its own previous judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015). The Court noted that a Special Leave Petition against this precedent is pending before the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court's decision would be binding on the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with a direction that if any difficulty arises after the Supreme Court's decision, parties can file an application in this appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals involving issues pending before the Supreme Court should be disposed of in line with the established practice, awaiting the apex court's final verdict, especially when a clear precedent exists at the High Court level.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the order passed in ITA No. 661/2018, which was itself to be decided in consonance with the forthcoming ruling of the Supreme Court in the pending appeal against the decision in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. The Court noted that the issue of levy of interest under Section 234B was covered against the Revenue by the High Court's prior judgment in the GE Packaged Power Inc. case. The operative direction was to dispose of the present appeal, with the understanding that the Supreme Court's decision would be binding. The Court also granted liberty to the parties to file an application in the present appeal if any difficulty arose after the Supreme Court's decision. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 234B interest levy in this judgment, as it was deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal by stating that the issue of levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is covered by its own judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court noted that an appeal against this judgment is pending before the Supreme Court. The parties agreed that the ruling of the Supreme Court would apply to the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with the understanding that if any difficulty arises after the Supreme Court's decision, parties can file an application. No specific finding was given on the merits of the current appeal, as it was disposed of based on the pendency of a higher court matter.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of its order dated 01.06.2018 in ITA No. 661/2018, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (International Taxation) vs. General Electric Power Systems INC. The Court noted that the question raised by the Revenue regarding the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered against them by the High Court's judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). As an appeal against this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court, and the parties agreed that the Supreme Court's ruling would apply to the present appeal, the High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal, with liberty to the parties to file an application after the Supreme Court's decision if any difficulty arose. The finding on the issue of Section 234B interest is implicitly that it is covered against the Revenue by the cited precedent, pending the Supreme Court's decision.
The High Court held that the issue concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years in view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, was covered against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same court in Pr. CIT vs. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 569 (Delhi). Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the depreciation carry forward was made by the High Court; rather, the dismissal was based on precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The High Court held that the issue concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years in view of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, was covered against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same court in Pr. CIT vs. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 569 (Delhi). Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the depreciation carry forward was made by the High Court; rather, the dismissal was based on precedent. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of its prior order in ITA No. 661/2018, which was in consonance with the judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). This judgment addressed the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was decided against the Revenue. The Court noted that an appeal against this decision was pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court held that the ruling by the Supreme Court would equally apply to the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with a liberty to the parties to file an application after the Supreme Court's decision in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the present appeal, as it was disposed of based on the understanding that the Supreme Court's decision would be binding.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeals concerning the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation beyond eight years, in light of the amendment by the Finance Act, 2001, is covered against the Revenue by the court's own previous judgment in Pr. CIT vs. British Motor Car Co. (1934) Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 569 (Delhi). Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arises for its consideration. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court decided to dispose of the present appeal in terms of the order passed in ITA No. 661/2018. This decision was based on the understanding that the issue of levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered by the High Court's own prior judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court acknowledged that an appeal against this precedent was pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the High Court held that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the pending appeal would equally apply to the present case. The appeal was disposed of with a liberty to the parties to file an application in the present appeal after the Supreme Court's decision if any difficulty arose. No specific finding on the merits of the interest levy was made, as the disposal was based on the pending Supreme Court decision.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the order passed in ITA No. 661/2018, which was in consonance with Sections 158A and 158AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though these provisions were not strictly applicable. The Court noted that the question raised by the Revenue concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered against them by the Delhi High Court's judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc., (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court further acknowledged that an appeal against this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court. The parties agreed that the ruling by the Supreme Court would equally apply to the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with the understanding that if any difficulty arises, parties could file an application after the Supreme Court's decision. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 234B interest levy in this judgment, as it was deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of its earlier order in ITA No. 661/2018. The Court noted that the issue of levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered against the Revenue by the High Court's own judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc., (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). While an SLP against this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court, the parties agreed that the Supreme Court's ruling would apply to the present appeal. The Court recorded this agreement and disposed of the appeal, allowing parties to file an application after the Supreme Court's decision if any difficulty arose. The specific finding on the levy of interest under Section 234B is not detailed as the appeal was disposed of based on the pending Supreme Court decision.
The High Court disposed of the appeal by stating that the issue of levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is covered against the Revenue by the Court's own judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court noted that an appeal against this precedent is pending before the Supreme Court and that the ruling of the Supreme Court would equally apply to the present appeal. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the previous order, with liberty to the parties to file an application after the Supreme Court's decision if any difficulty arises. The principle is that where a similar issue has been decided by the High Court and an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court may dispose of the current appeal in line with the existing precedent, awaiting the apex court's final verdict.
The High Court held that the warrants of authorization for search and seizure operations in respect of the three lockers were vitiated and illegal. The Court found merit in the writ petitions, stating that the warrants were issued without the requisite satisfaction of the authorizing officer concerning the petitioners. The satisfaction note in the case of Karamjit Singh Jaiswal did not mention the petitioners, and their lack of connection with Jaiswal was not denied by the respondents. The Court reasoned that the authority to conduct search and seizure is a stringent power that must be exercised only when the conditions under Section 132(1) of the Act are satisfied, requiring the formation of a requisite belief. The Court quashed and set aside the warrants of authorization against the petitioners and consequently, the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the evidence collected during the search or its potential use in other proceedings. The petitions were allowed.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal by stating that the issue of levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is covered against the Revenue by their own judgment in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. GE Packaged Power Inc., (2015) 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). The Court noted that an appeal against this decision is pending before the Supreme Court. The parties agreed that the ruling by the Supreme Court would apply to the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the order passed in ITA No. 661/2018. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of, with liberty to the parties to file an application in this appeal after the decision of the Supreme Court if any difficulty arises. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of based on the pending Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reallocating expenses solely based on profit margin differences between the units. Separate accounts cannot be rejected without identifying discrepancies in the books.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue had become infructuous. This was based on the submission of both parties that the issue in question had already been remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision by a prior order of the High Court dated September 1, 2017, in the assessee's appeal (ITA No. 563/2017). Consequently, the High Court disposed of the present appeal as infructuous without making any comments on the merits of the case. The application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal was also not examined or decided. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as infructuous.
The High Court held that both issues raised in the appeal were covered against the Revenue by its previous decisions. For the first issue concerning Section 14A, the Court referred to its decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 6 versus Mcdonalds's India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 725/2018, decided on 22.10.2018. For the second issue regarding the second proviso of Section 40(a)(ia), the Court cited its ruling in Ansal Land Mark Township Private Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. No issue was left undecided.
The Court held that the question of whether the petitioner could claim against the second respondent was a matter for the Arbitrator to decide. The attachment order by Income Tax Authorities was also not an impediment to appointing an Arbitrator.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining or answering the question/issue raised. The Court took on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue that the tax effect in the appeal is below Rs. 50 lacs. In terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018, the appeal was disposed of without answering the issue. The issue/question of law has been left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the matter is covered by an exception. The finding is based on the administrative instruction and not on the merits of the substantive issue.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2011-12, finding no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order which upheld the lower appellate authority's computation. However, for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the court admitted the appeals for consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal's decision was primarily based on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M. Tech India Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 381 ITR 31 (Del.). The reasoning was that since the software was embedded in the hardware and not separately purchased, and the assessee did not acquire any copyright, the provisions for tax deduction at source on royalty or fees for technical services were not applicable. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified. The Tribunal found that no substantial question of law arose as the issue was covered by the precedent.
The High Court took the statement of the Revenue on record and disposed of the present appeals with liberty to the Revenue to ask for revival in case the matter is covered by any exception. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The applications for condonation of delay in re-filing were allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court did not decide any substantive issue related to income tax law, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis due to the tax effect being below the threshold. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of without adjudication.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeal, pertaining to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was covered against the Revenue by several decisions of the High Court. The latest of these was ITA No. 725/2018, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 New Delhi versus Macdonald’s India Private Limited, dated 22nd October, 2018. In view of this established legal position and the factual context, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific finding was made on the merits of the disallowance itself, as the appeal was dismissed on the ground of being covered by precedent.
The High Court took the statement of the Revenue on record and disposed of the present appeals with liberty to the Revenue to ask for revival in case the matter is covered by any exception. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The applications for condonation of delay in re-filing were allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court did not decide any substantive issue related to income tax law, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis due to the tax effect being below the threshold. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of without adjudication.
The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court found that the Assessing Officer had not factually established the conditions for invoking Article 5(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA regarding supervisory activities. Furthermore, the taxability of software payments as royalty was covered by a previous High Court decision.
The High Court took the statement of the Revenue on record and disposed of the present appeals with liberty to the Revenue to ask for revival in case the matter is covered by any exception. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The applications for condonation of delay in re-filing were allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court did not decide any substantive issue related to income tax law, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis due to the tax effect being below the threshold. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of without adjudication.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AY 2011-12, finding no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order which upheld the lower appellate authority's computation. However, for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the court admitted the appeals for consideration.