Loading High Court cases…
976 orders · Page 9 of 20
The High Court recorded the statement made by the counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the Court disposed of the appeals without adjudicating the issues/questions raised. The issues/questions were treated as left open. Consequently, C.M. No. 8247/2018, seeking condonation of delay in ITA No. 265/2018, was also not decided. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as per the Revenue's statement, leaving the substantive issues undecided.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018, the Court disposed of the appeals without adjudicating the issues/questions raised. The issues/questions were treated as left open. Consequently, C.M. No. 8247/2018, seeking condonation of delay in ITA No. 265/2018, was also not decided. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as per the Revenue's statement, leaving the substantive issues undecided.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 86 lakhs as it was part of a larger sum surrendered and accepted by the employer. The addition of Rs. 41 lakhs was also not justified as the Revenue did not appeal the employer's assessment on this amount.
The Tribunal found that the sales incentive was paid for meeting sales targets within a 15-month period ending June 30, 2004, making it relevant to the assessment year 2005-06. The High Court held that an auditor's qualified opinion alone does not override factual findings.
The Tribunal upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings, finding that the non-disclosure of royalty income in the original return constituted valid grounds for reopening. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 50,00,000/-. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018, dated 11.07.2018, the Revenue requested disposal of the appeal without examining the issue and leaving the question of law open. The High Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeal accordingly. No observations were made on the merits of the case, and the question of law was expressly left open. Pending applications were also disposed of. Notice was not issued on the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refilling the appeal in view of the aforesaid statement.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, agreeing that MRUC was not a suitable comparable. The court found significant functional dissimilarities, including MRUC's non-profit motive, its services to members, and extensive outsourcing, making it different from a commercial profit-making entity.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without answering the issue/question raised, in view of the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue regarding the tax effect being less than Rs.50 lakhs and the applicability of Circular No. 3 of 2018. The Court clarified that this order would not affect the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the respondent-assessee, specifically mentioning Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 47 (Delhi) concerning depreciation on computer accessories and peripherals. No specific finding was given on the substantive issue of depreciation. The applications for condonation of delay were not issued notice as the appeal was not being decided.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision on provision for warranty and capitalization of marketing expenses. The issue of damaged stock was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on warranty provision and marketing expenses. The issue of damaged stock was remanded to the Tribunal, and the obsolescence issue was also remanded for fresh determination.
The High Court, based on the statement made by the counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50 Lacs and in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, disposed of the appeals. The Court recorded the aforesaid statement and decided that the substantial question of law raised in the appeals need not be answered. Consequently, the substantial question of law was left open. No specific relief was granted or denied on the merits of the case, and no findings were made on the substantive issues of the appeals.
The High Court held that translation services, when reduced to electronic format and transmitted via the internet, constitute customized electronic data and fall within the expanded definition of computer software under Section 80HHE. The court followed its previous ruling in CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.
The ITAT held that the assessee's explanation was an afterthought, as the excess stock was of fabrics, not garments, and Benu Exports dealt only in garments. The tribunal found no error in the ITAT's order which restored the AO's addition.
The High Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Court accepted the request to dispose of the appeal without deciding the substantial questions of law, leaving them open. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the present case is covered by one of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The ITAT held that the addition was based solely on a retracted statement and insufficient documentary evidence, and that the Income Tax Department failed to conduct independent inquiries to establish the income. The High Court agreed that the ITAT's conclusion was not unreasonable.
The High Court held that translation services, when reduced to electronic format and transmitted via the internet, qualify as customized electronic data and thus fall within the expanded definition of computer software under Section 80HHE. The court followed its previous ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. New Delhi Television Ltd.
The High Court of Delhi held that the appeals filed by the Revenue could not be proceeded with. The primary reason for this decision was the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 3/2018, dated July 11, 2018. This circular stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below ₹50 lakh should not be filed or prosecuted by the Revenue. Since the tax effect in all the present appeals was stated to be lower than this prescribed limit, the Court found no basis to continue with them. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed on the ground of lower tax effect. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive issues that might have arisen in these appeals.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the counsel for the appellant-Revenue. Based on this statement, the Court disposed of the appeals. The disposal was made without deciding the issue raised, and the question of law was expressly left open. The reasoning for this decision was solely based on the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the applicability of Circular No. 3/2018. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as stated, without prejudice to the rights of the parties on the merits of the issue.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no substantial question of law. The court agreed with the ITAT's reasoning, which was consistent with previous orders in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the counsel for the appellant-Revenue. Based on this statement, the Court disposed of the appeals. The disposal was made without deciding the issue raised, and the question of law was expressly left open. The reasoning for this decision was solely based on the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect and the applicability of Circular No. 3/2018. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals as stated, without prejudice to the rights of the parties on the merits of the issue.
The High Court held that while mens rea is not required for penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the assessee must prove their explanation was bona fide and all material facts were disclosed. In this case, NHB acted bona fide and had a genuine belief in their entitlement to the deduction, satisfying the conditions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court found no reason for the Revenue to prefer the appeal, especially since its departmental representative had repeatedly sought adjournments before the lower authority. Furthermore, the Court noted that the issue involved was covered by its earlier decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015] 376 ITR 87(Del). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided.
The High Court held that while mens rea is not required for penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the assessee must prove their explanation was bona fide and all material facts were disclosed. In this case, NHB acted bona fide and had a genuine belief in their entitlement to the deduction, satisfying the conditions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court held that while mens rea is not required for penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the assessee must prove their explanation was bona fide and all material facts were disclosed. In this case, NHB acted bona fide and had a genuine belief in their entitlement to the deduction, satisfying the conditions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court held that while mens rea is not required for penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the assessee must prove their explanation was bona fide and all material facts were disclosed. In this case, NHB acted bona fide and had a genuine belief in their entitlement to the deduction, satisfying the conditions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, finding that the assessee's claim for depreciation was made bonafide and based on a debatable legal issue. The assessee revised the claim after a CBDT clarification, and the initial claim was allowed in regular assessment, indicating no intentional concealment.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The High Court found that the issue of depreciation on toll roads was debatable and the assessee's conduct was bonafide, thus not attracting penalty for concealment of income.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the present appeal was identical to the issue that had been decided in the Revenue's earlier appeal (ITA No. 123/2017) concerning the same assessee for assessment year 2011-12. In that prior appeal, the Revenue's contentions were dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated March 3, 2017. Consequently, the High Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine, meaning at the outset, without a detailed examination of the merits. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court held that while mens rea is not required for penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the assessee must prove their explanation was bona fide and all material facts were disclosed. In this case, NHB acted bona fide and had a genuine belief in their entitlement to the deduction, satisfying the conditions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c).
The tribunal held that non-payment of an admitted liability, even if time-barred, does not amount to cessation or remission of liability. The acknowledgement of the debt in the balance sheet signifies its subsistence.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The court found that the omission to declare royalty and technical fees in the original returns constituted valid reasons for reopening the assessment.
The High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of a previous order, stating that the Supreme Court's ruling in a related matter would apply. The court clarified that this order would not affect other appeals filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal recorded the statement made by the counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeals, relating to assessment years 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, is below Rs. 50 Lacs. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Tribunal accepted that the substantial question of law framed in the appeals need not be answered. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, which was left open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by its previous decision in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Del.). The Court found no merit in the present appeal, noting that it was filed after the ITAT's stay order had expired. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Revenue's request for adjournments before the ITAT, followed by an appeal to vacate the stay due to delay, presented a contradiction in their stand. The Court suggested that the Tribunal might have been better advised to decline adjournments and decide the appeal ex-parte. Consequently, the High Court was not inclined to condone the delay of 37 days and dismissed both the appeal and the application for condonation of delay.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the net profit rate, stating it cannot be mere guesswork. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of addition under Section 41(1) to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal recorded the statement made by the counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeals, relating to assessment years 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, is below Rs. 50 Lacs. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Tribunal accepted that the substantial question of law framed in the appeals need not be answered. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, which was left open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The court found that the omission to declare royalty/FTS income in the original returns constituted a valid reason for reopening.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The court found that the omission to declare royalty/FTS income in the original returns constituted a valid reason for reopening.
The Tribunal recorded the statement made by the counsel for the appellant/Revenue that the tax effect in the present appeals, relating to assessment years 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, is below Rs. 50 Lacs. In terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Tribunal accepted that the substantial question of law framed in the appeals need not be answered. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of without answering the substantial question of law, which was left open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the case.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The court found that the omission to declare royalty/FTS income in the original returns constituted a valid reason for reopening.