Loading High Court cases…
976 orders · Page 4 of 20
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer had not factually elucidated how the conditions for invoking Article 5(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA were met. Furthermore, the issue of software payments being taxable as royalty was covered by a previous High Court decision against the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer had not factually elucidated how the conditions for invoking Article 5(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA were met. Furthermore, the issue of software payments being taxable as royalty was covered by a previous High Court decision against the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer had not factually elucidated how the conditions for invoking Article 5(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA were met. Furthermore, the issue of software payments being taxable as royalty was covered by a previous High Court decision against the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer had not factually elucidated how the conditions for invoking Article 5(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA were met. Furthermore, the issue of software payments being taxable as royalty was covered by a previous High Court decision against the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer had not factually elucidated how the conditions for invoking Article 5(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA were met. Furthermore, the issue of software payments being taxable as royalty was covered by a previous High Court decision against the Revenue.
The High Court of Delhi took the statement of the appellant-Revenue on record regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lacs. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present appeal without answering the substantial question of law, leaving it open. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant-Revenue to file an application for revival if the case is covered under an exception. No specific finding was made on the merits of the substantial question of law as it was not addressed.
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal without answering the substantial question of law. The court took on record the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lacs. The substantial question of law was left open. Liberty was granted to the appellant-Revenue to file an application for revival if the case is covered under an exception. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal without answering the substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C. The court found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the earlier decision was not applicable, as the assessee was an 'eligible assessee' for whom the Section 144C procedure was mandatory.
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer had not factually elucidated how the conditions for invoking Article 5(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA were met. Furthermore, the issue of software payments being taxable as royalty was covered by a previous High Court decision against the Revenue.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was based on its independent analysis of the evidence, not solely on the CIT(A)'s consideration of fresh material. The CIT(A) could not have relied on past orders to ignore the AO's detailed inquiry and findings.
The High Court of Delhi, in its order dated November 20, 2018, decided not to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Court noted that the issue raised in the appeal pertained to disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to ascertain if the assessee had earned any exempt income that was not taxable. The High Court found that this direction was covered by its own prior decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Mcdonalds India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 725/2018, decided on October 22, 2018. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the ITAT's decision on the year of taxation for pre-paid cards. However, it allowed the Assessing Officer to verify revenue leakage from unutilized talk time on expired cards as per the assessee's concession.
The Tribunal held that the bookstall activity was not commercial as no rent was charged and the books included non-religious titles. It also found that facilities like a bookstall, canteen, and bank were ancillary and necessary for the hospital's functioning and patient care, not commercial activities.
The High Court of Delhi took the statement made by the Revenue's counsel on record. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present appeals without examining the question/issue raised. The Court explicitly stated that the issue/question is left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeals in case it is found that the matter is covered by an exception. The reasoning is based on the Revenue's own submission regarding the tax effect and the applicable circular. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court took the statement of the Revenue's counsel on record. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised. The Court explicitly clarified that the issue/question is left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case it is found that the matter is covered by an exception to the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as per administrative instructions like Circular No.3 of 2018, can be disposed of without adjudication on merits, provided the party making the request seeks to leave the issue open and reserves liberty for revival under specific circumstances.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to determine the fair market value based on the Rs 16,750 per bigha rate. It also affirmed the application of escalation rates to arrive at the final compensation.
The Tribunal accepted the statement made by the Revenue's counsel. It was held that the present appeal would be disposed of without examining the question/issue raised, and that the said question/issue would be left open. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case it is found that the matter is covered by an exception to the circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as per the Revenue's submission, leaving the substantive issue undecided.
The Tribunal disposed of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised. This decision was based on the Revenue's statement that the tax effect was below Rs.50 lakhs, as per Circular No.3 of 2018. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the issue/question is 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 ratio of this decision is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as stipulated by administrative circulars, can be disposed of without merits, preserving the right to revival under specific circumstances.
The High Court accepted the statement made by the appellant's (Revenue's) counsel that the tax effect in the appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs. In terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018, the Court disposed of the appeal without examining or answering the question/issue raised. The issue was explicitly 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 to the circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal without merits.
The High Court took the Revenue's statement on record. It disposed of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised, explicitly stating that the issue/question is left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the matter is covered by an exception to the circular. The principle established is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold specified in the relevant circular can be disposed of without merits, preserving the right to revive if exceptions apply.
The High Court took the statement of the Revenue's counsel on record. It was held that the present appeals would be disposed of without examining the question/issue raised. The Court explicitly stated that the issue/question is left open. The principle derived is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as stipulated by revenue circulars, can be disposed of without a substantive decision on the merits, provided the issue is left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case it is found that the matter is covered by an exception. No specific findings were made on the substantive tax issues.
The High Court took the Revenue's statement on record. It disposed of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised, explicitly stating that the issue/question is 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 reasoning for this decision is based on the Revenue's own submission regarding the tax effect and the applicable circular, indicating a procedural disposal rather than a decision on the merits of the substantive tax dispute.