Loading High Court cases…
976 orders · Page 7 of 20
The High Court has adjourned the hearing of these appeals to a later date. No substantive decision or ruling has been made in this order.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lacs. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the Court disposed of the appeal, leaving the question of law open. The Court also clarified that if the appeal is covered by any exception, it will be open to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal. The pending application was also disposed of. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue/question raised. The court recorded the statement made by the learned Senior Standing counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect involved in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the appeal may be disposed of. The court clarified 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 case is covered by an exception. The principle is that appeals with a low tax effect can be withdrawn or disposed of without adjudication, subject to specific circulars and exceptions.
The Delhi High Court held that the maintenance charges/franchisee fee received by the assessee from satellite schools is exempted under Section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act. The court found the income was not hit by the provisions of Section 11(4A).
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal without examining the issue/question raised. The court recorded the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding the low tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- as per Circular No. 3/2018. The court clarified that the issue/question remains open and granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the case falls under an exception to the circular. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court, upon recording the submission of the Revenue's counsel regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50,00,000/-, disposed of the appeal without examining the issue or question raised. The Court clarified that the issue/question remains open and granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the case falls under an exception to the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as per the prevailing circular, can be disposed of without adjudication on merits, preserving the right to revival under specific circumstances.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue or question raised. The Court recorded the appellant/Revenue's statement that the tax effect involved was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.7.2018, the appeal was disposed of without answering the issue. The Court clarified that the issue/question was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it was found to be covered by an exception to the circular. The application for condonation of delay in re-filing was not considered due to the disposal of the appeal.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.7.2018, the appeal was disposed of without examining or answering the issue/question raised. The Court clarified that the issue/question remains open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the case falls under an exception to the circular. The hearing date was cancelled.
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal without examining the issue/question raised. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal could be disposed of on this basis. The Court clarified that the issue/question remains open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the case falls under an exception to the circular. The operative direction is the disposal of the appeal as per the circular.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue or question raised. The Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018, the appeal could be disposed of on that basis. The Court clarified that the issue/question was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it was found that the case was covered by an exception to the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by the relevant circular, can be disposed of without adjudication on merits, subject to specific conditions and liberty for revival.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue or question raised. The Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, therefore, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the appeal could be disposed of. The Court clarified that the issue/question was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it was found to be covered by an exception to the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold stipulated in the relevant circular can be disposed of without deciding the merits, subject to conditions and liberty to seek revival.
The Delhi High Court held that the maintenance charges/franchisee fees received by the assessee are exempted under Section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act. The court followed its previous decision in a similar case.
The Delhi High Court held that the maintenance charges/franchisee fee received by the assessee from satellite schools is exempted under Section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act. The court found the income was not hit by the provisions of Section 11(4A).
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue/question raised. The Court recorded the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and therefore, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.7.2018, the appeal could be disposed of. The Court clarified that the issue/question was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it was found that the case was covered by an exception to the circular. The dates fixed for hearing before the Joint Registrar and the Court were cancelled. The application for condonation of delay was not decided and would be decided if the appeal is revived.
The tribunal held that the arbitrator's determination of claims was based on a due appreciation of facts and law, and there was no perversity, patent illegality, or breach of the fundamental policy of India. The objections regarding the amounts granted and the interest awarded were found to be without merit.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue or question raised. The court recorded the submission of the Revenue that the tax effect was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the appeal could be disposed of on that basis. The court clarified that the issue/question remained open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it was found that the case falls under an exception to the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as per relevant circulars, can be disposed of without deciding the merits, provided no exceptions apply.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue/question raised. The Court recorded the statement made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/- and, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the appeal could be disposed of on this basis. The Court clarified that the issue/question raised in the appeal is left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the case 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, can be disposed of without adjudication on merits, preserving the right to seek revival under specific circumstances.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal was below Rs. 50 lacs. Consequently, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated July 11, 2018, the appeal was disposed of without examining and deciding the issue/question raised. The issue/question was expressly left open. The High Court also clarified that if the present appeal falls under any exception to the circular, it would be open to the Revenue to file an application for revival. 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 a decision on the merits, provided the concerned party makes such a submission.
The High Court held that the first issue regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,75,31,625/- in respect of franchisee fees is covered against the Revenue by the High Court's own decision in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) versus Delhi Public School Society, (2018) 403 ITR 49 (Delhi). Therefore, no substantial question of law arises on this point. The second issue concerning the carry forward of deficit and its set off against income of a subsequent year is also covered by a previous judgment of the Delhi High Court in ITA No.1075/2008, Director of Income Tax versus Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust dated 27th July, 2010. As both issues are covered by precedents, the Court found no substantial question of law requiring consideration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific operative directions were issued as the appeal itself was dismissed.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. In accordance with Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Court disposed of the appeal without examining the issue or question raised. The Court clarified that the issue/question remained open and granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it was found to be covered by an exception to the circular. The ratio is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as per CBDT circulars, can be disposed of on that procedural ground without deciding the merits, with liberty to seek revival if an exception applies.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue regarding the low tax effect (below Rs. 50,00,000/-) and the applicability of Circular No. 3/2018. Based on this submission, the Court disposed of the appeal without examining or answering the issue/question raised. The Court clarified that the issue/question was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it was found that the case fell under an exception to the circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as per the Revenue's request.
The High Court recorded the submission of the Revenue regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50,00,000/- and the applicability of Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal without examining or answering the issue/question raised. The Court clarified that the issue/question remains open and granted liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the case falls under an exception to the circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn based on the Revenue's submission and to cancel the future hearing date.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without examining or answering the issue/question raised. The Court clarified 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 case is covered by an exception to Circular No. 3/2018. The dates of hearing fixed before the Joint Registrar and the Court were cancelled. The application for condonation of delay was not decided and would be considered if the appeal is revived.
The Delhi High Court held that the issues raised in the present appeal were covered against the Revenue by its earlier decisions in ITA No.703/2009 and ITA No.706/2011. The Court noted that leave to appeal against these prior judgments had been granted by the Supreme Court. Since the assessee was not willing to make a statement under Section 158A and 158AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Court could not compel them to do so, the Revenue's opportunity to rely on relevant provisions at the appropriate stage was noted. The Court concluded that the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Delhi High Court held that the maintenance charges/franchisee fee received by the assessee from satellite schools is exempted under Section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act. The court found the income was not hit by the provisions of Section 11(4A).
The High Court recorded the statement made by the appellant-Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lacs. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the Court disposed of the appeal without examining and deciding the issue/question raised. The Court explicitly stated that the issue/question is left open. The judgment also noted that if the appeal falls under any exception to the circular, it would be open for the Revenue to file an application for revival. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case, and no operative directions for remand or deletion were issued.
The High Court noted the submission by the learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.7.2018, the Court stated that the appeal may be disposed of without answering the issue/question raised. The Court recorded that the appeal is disposed of without examining the issue/question raised. It was clarified 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 case falls under an exception to the circular.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer posed the wrong question and misapplied the S.A. Builders judgment. Commercial expediency does not require proving borrowed funds weren't used for interest-free advances; it requires a nexus between expenditure and business purpose.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the tax effect in the appeal is below Rs. 50 lacs. Consequently, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the Revenue requested disposal of the appeal without examining and deciding the issue/question raised, clarifying that the issue/question would be left open. The High Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeal accordingly, without answering the issue/question raised, which was left open. The court also noted that in view of this position, notice was not being issued on the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
The High Court held that the appellate tribunal's view that third-party claims under other enactments had primacy over PMLA provisions was incorrect. It emphasized the need for further factual scrutiny of the banks' claims regarding bonafide acquisition and the extent of their secured interest.
The High Court disposed of the appeals on the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in the present appeals was below Rs. 50 lacs and, therefore, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July 2018, the appeals could be disposed of without examining and deciding the issues raised. The Court recorded this statement and disposed of the appeals, clarifying that the issue/question raised was left open. No decision was made on the merits of the case. Consequently, notice was not issued on the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing of the appeals.
The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, deleting the addition. It held that investment in subsidiaries was a main object of the assessee, and interest incurred for such investments was deductible under Section 36(1)(iii).
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer posed the wrong question and that the S.A. Builders judgment does not require the assessee to prove borrowed funds were not used for interest-free advances. Commercial expediency is key, and the Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman.
The Tribunal affirmed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, holding that investment in subsidiaries was a main object of the assessee and interest incurred for such investments is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii).
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court relied on its previous decision in Director of Income Tax versus New Skies Satellite BV, (2016) 382 ITR 114 (Del.). Following this precedent, the Court held that payment for the utilization of a satellite transponder is not royalty in terms of Article 12 of the Indo-Thai Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issue was considered settled by the prior ruling. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Court disposed of the appeal without examining and deciding the issue/question raised. The Court clarified that the issue/question is left open. The ratio of this decision is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as defined by CBDT circulars, can be disposed of without merits, based on the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the circular's mandate. No specific relief was granted or denied on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance, holding that interest paid on unsecured loans for business purposes is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii). The court agreed, stating that the Revenue cannot question commercial expediency if the loans were not diverted for personal use.
The tribunal upheld the use of the deceased's ITR, as it was statutorily established and filed before the accident. It also found no evidence of contributory negligence, attributing the accident solely to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle.
The High Court disposed of the appeals filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in these appeals was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated July 11, 2018, the Revenue requested disposal of the appeals without examining the merits. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeals, explicitly stating that no comment was made on the merits of the issues. The issues themselves were left open for future consideration, meaning this disposal does not set a precedent on the substantive tax matters.
The High Court disposed of the appeals filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in these appeals was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated July 11, 2018, the Revenue requested disposal of the appeals without examining the merits. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeals, explicitly stating that no comment was made on the merits of the issues. The issues themselves were left open for future consideration, meaning this disposal does not set a precedent on the substantive tax matters.
The High Court disposed of the appeals filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in these appeals was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated July 11, 2018, the Revenue requested disposal of the appeals without examining the merits. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeals, explicitly stating that no comment was made on the merits of the issues. The issues themselves were left open for future consideration, meaning this disposal does not set a precedent on the substantive tax matters.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. This conclusion was reached because the Revenue itself stated that a prior appeal filed by the Revenue against the identical impugned order for the same assessment year (2010-11) had already been dismissed by the High Court on May 28, 2018. That dismissal was in accordance with the High Court's own judgment in M/s GS1 India v. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) and Anr. (2014) 360 ITR 138. Therefore, following the accepted position and the prior decision, the present appeal was also dismissed. No specific relief was granted or denied on merits as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds related to precedent.
The Court held that the defendant had infringed upon the plaintiff's trademark 'IMS' by continuing its use post-termination of the agreement. The defendant's conduct was found to be mala fide, leading to the award of damages and costs.
The High Court disposed of the appeals filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in these appeals was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. Citing Circular No. 3/2018 dated July 11, 2018, the Revenue requested disposal of the appeals without examining the merits. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeals, explicitly stating that no comment was made on the merits of the issues. The issues themselves were left open for future consideration, meaning this disposal does not set a precedent on the substantive tax matters.
The High Court disposed of the appeal based on the statement made by the Revenue's counsel. The Revenue stated that the tax effect was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and requested disposal in terms of Circular No. 3/2018. The Court recorded this statement and disposed of the appeal without answering the substantial question of law. It was clarified that the issue raised in the appeal was left open. The reasoning is administrative, based on the revenue's instructions and circulars regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The ratio is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as per administrative instructions, can be withdrawn or disposed of without adjudication on merits, leaving the underlying issue undecided.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of Circular No.3 of 2018, as the tax effect was below Rs.50 lakhs. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal was left open and was not answered. Therefore, no finding was reached on the merits of the substantial question of law. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal based on the circular.