Loading High Court cases…
296 orders · Page 3 of 6
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal in light of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The income tax demand of Rs. 6,85,236/-, as mentioned in the CIT(A)'s order dated 24.02.2004 and confirmed by the letter dated 20.11.2019 from the ACIT, Judicial-2, New Delhi, was found to be below the permissible tax effect limit. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on this procedural ground without deciding the merits of the case. No specific finding was made on the substantive issues of the appeal.
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal. The decision was based on the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), Government of India. This circular fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The income tax demand in the present appeal, as mentioned in the CIT(A) order dated 06.08.2000 and the letter dated 20.11.2019 from the ACIT, Judicial-2, New Delhi, was Rs. 3,58,428/-. Since this tax effect was below the permissible limit, the appeal was disposed of. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal on this administrative ground.
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal in light of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT. This circular fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Court noted that the income tax demand of Rs. 86,93,256/- as mentioned in the CIT(A) order dated 03.03.2010, and the tax effect in the present appeal, were below the permissible limit. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this procedural ground, without delving into the merits of the case. No specific issue was left undecided, as the disposal was based on the tax effect limit.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeal based on a circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular fixed the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Court noted that the disallowances and deletions upheld by the ITAT were less than Rs. 1 crore. Additionally, a letter dated 20.11.2019 from the ACIT, Judicial-2, New Delhi, confirmed that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the permissible limit. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without deciding on the merits.
The High Court of Delhi, in light of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), Government of India, which sets the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, disposed of the present appeal. The Court noted that the income tax demand of Rs. 34,41,459/- as mentioned in the order of CIT (A) dated 01.02.2010, and the tax effect in the present appeal, were below the permissible tax effect limit. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on this administrative ground, without delving into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, as per CBDT circulars, are to be disposed of by the High Court.
The High Court decided to dispose of the present appeal. The Court took note of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court. The Court observed that the income tax demand of Rs. 55,50,620/-, as mentioned in the CIT(A)'s order dated 20.04.2001, and further clarified by the ACIT's letter dated 20.11.2019, indicated that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the prescribed limit. Consequently, based on the circular and the tax effect, the appeal was disposed of. No decision on the merits of the appeal was made.
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal. The decision was based on the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), Government of India. This circular fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Court noted that the income tax demand of Rs. 67,16,061/- (as per the CIT (A) order dated 07.08.2003) and the tax effect in the present appeal were below this permissible limit. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this procedural ground, without delving into the merits of the case.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in light of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The tax effect in the present appeal, which was Rs. 27,52,754/- as per the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed by a letter from ACIT dated 20.11.2019, was found to be below the permissible tax effect limit. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on this administrative ground, without deciding the merits of the case.
The tribunal found that AIPL had agreed to pay outstanding electricity charges and that its security deposit was correctly adjusted against the amounts due to PDL. Therefore, AIPL's claim for interest on the security deposit was not sustainable.
The Tribunal's findings were not perverse as they were based on detailed inquiries and evidence, including the non-existence of service providers and the JSP technology's timeline. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and the software purchase.
The Tribunal's findings were not perverse as they were based on detailed inquiries and evidence, including the non-existence of service providers and the JSP technology's timeline. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the expenditure and the software purchase.
The High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The decision was based on a circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section). This circular fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 52,98,808/-, which is below the permissible limit. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on this administrative ground, without delving into the merits of the case. No specific finding on the substantive issues of the appeal was recorded.
The High Court of Delhi allowed the Revenue's application for exemption. Subsequently, the Appellant (Revenue), through its counsel, sought leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court, in light of the Revenue's request and referencing the precedent set in Lachman Dass Bhatia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, granted liberty to the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to prefer a writ petition to challenge the ITAT's order. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal.
The High Court declined to interfere with the ITAT's order at the present stage. The Court reasoned that the impugned order was interlocutory, and the original appeal before the ITAT was still pending. The Court held that if the Revenue is aggrieved by the final order of the ITAT in the pending appeal, it would be open to them to raise a challenge to the order dated 26.07.2018 at that time. All pleas and contentions of the Revenue raised in the present appeal were preserved. The High Court requested the ITAT to expedite the hearing of the pending appeal. No specific finding was made on the merits of the additional grounds themselves.
The High Court held that the issue regarding the power of the Tribunal to extend a stay beyond one year, despite the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, has already been answered by this Court in Pepsi Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2015 376 ITR 87. Furthermore, the Court was informed that the substantial appeal before the ITAT has already been decided against the Revenue. In light of these two factors, the High Court concluded that no question of law arises for its consideration. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly followed the previous High Court decision, as the assessee failed to demonstrate any material difference in facts for the current assessment years compared to the years covered by the prior ruling. The court found no substantial question of law arising.
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly followed the previous High Court decision, as the assessee failed to demonstrate any material difference in facts for the current assessment years compared to the years covered by the prior ruling. The court found no substantial question of law arising.
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly followed the previous High Court decision, as the assessee failed to demonstrate any material difference in facts for the current assessment years compared to the years covered by the prior ruling. The court found no substantial question of law arising.
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly followed the previous High Court decision, as the assessee failed to demonstrate any material difference in facts for the current assessment years compared to the years covered by the prior ruling. The court found no substantial question of law arising.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 67,27,801/-. This amount was below the monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- fixed by the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), Government of India, for pursuing matters before the High Court. Therefore, in light of this circular, the appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit are not to be pursued by the Revenue before the High Court. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the ITAT's earlier remand order was a complete and wholesale remand, not limited in scope. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to raise fresh claims. The ITAT erred in upholding the rejection of the claim without considering its merits.
The Court held that the appeals had abated due to the death of the sole appellant and the failure of her legal heir to come on record. The assignee's claim was deemed a disputed question of fact requiring independent adjudication.