Loading High Court cases…
296 orders · Page 4 of 6
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court followed its own prior decision in ITA 110/2019, which dealt with the same issue for assessment year 2009-10. In that prior decision, the Court had held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Therefore, by extension, the present appeal also does not present a substantial question of law. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the Section 2(15) issue for AY 2011-12 is recorded in this order, as it relies on the prior precedent.
The High Court disposed of the present appeal as not pressed. This decision was made in light of the circular dated 08.08.2019, which sets the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 50,49,406/-, which is below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal was not considered pressable by the Revenue. The Court did not decide the substantive issues of the appeal on their merits. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. This decision was 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/-. Since the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 33,35,962/-, which was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was deemed not pressable by the Revenue. The court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was sustainable as the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C. Furthermore, no additions were made based on the unearthed agreement itself.
The High Court noted the submission of the appellant's counsel that issues 'e', 'c', and 'd' would not survive in view of the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on account of low tax effect. The appellant further stated that they reserved the right to raise these issues in subsequent years and had instructions not to pursue the present appeal in relation to these issues due to the low quantum involved. Consequently, the Court found no reason to proceed with these issues in the current appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of issues 'e', 'c', and 'd', nor was any ratio decidendi established for these points as they were not pressed.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) had filed an affidavit disclosing that the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 55,25,098/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This limit was fixed by a 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 the pursuit of matters before the High Court. Based on this circular and the low tax effect, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit in the relevant CBDT circular are liable to be dismissed on that ground.
The High Court held that no question of law arises for its consideration. This conclusion was reached because the ITAT had already determined that the Appellant assessee had a permanent establishment in India. The High Court noted that this finding by the ITAT was consistent with its own prior decisions in related appeals, which had been confirmed by the High Court. Consequently, following its own precedents, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order. Consequently, following its prior decision in related appeals (ITA 850/2019 and ITA 851/2019 decided on 23.09.2019), the present appeal was found to be without merit. The principle derived is that if an appeal does not present a substantial question of law, it is liable to be dismissed summarily. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the trust's spiritual and religious activities were within its objects and not solely for personal benefit. It also held that the AO's additions regarding anonymous donations and expenditures were based on conjecture and lacked material evidence.
The High Court held that minimum attendance is non-negotiable for professional courses and cannot be substituted by credit scores. The court found the Single Judge's interpretation of the ordinance to be untenable, as it allowed promotion despite significant attendance shortage.
The High Court of Delhi, on 18.11.2019, allowed the Revenue's application for exemption and subsequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to prefer a writ petition to challenge the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the ITAT. The reasoning for this decision is based on the Revenue's instruction to withdraw the appeal, citing a previous High Court decision as the basis for pursuing a different legal remedy. No decision on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT was made.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the investors, despite several opportunities and notices. The High Court agreed that no question of law arose as the decision was based on appreciation of evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that since the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of accounts, he could not make additions based on industry comparisons.
The High Court held that the Tribunal should have disposed of the appeal with liberty to the Revenue to revive reassessment proceedings if the CESTAT order, which formed the basis for reopening, was eventually upheld. The assessee would not be able to raise a plea of limitation in such a case.
The Tribunal decided that the existence of a permanent establishment in India is irrelevant if the transactions are at arm's length. The High Court found no question of law arising as the issue was concluded by Supreme Court judgments, including one concerning the assessee.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding the initiation of proceedings without proper satisfaction to be bad in law. The High Court dismissed the appeal due to concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities.
The High Court held that the notice under Section 148 was validly issued. While acknowledging that the notice to M/s Aadhar Ventures India Ltd. was sent to an incorrect address, the Court found that this was not the sole reason for reopening. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, which included information from an investigation report indicating that M/s Pranetta Industries Ltd. was an entry provider and had infused share capital of Rs. 3 crores into the petitioner, established a 'live link' between the material and the belief of escaped income. The Court referred to the decision in ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Limited to emphasize that at the stage of issuing a notice, the existence of relevant material for a reasonable belief is sufficient. However, the Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance that they were not provided with the material relied upon for recording the reasons to believe, which curtailed their right to object. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated August 30, 2019, and permitted the petitioner to raise objections within seven days of receiving the documents provided by the revenue in court. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide these objections within two weeks, and reassessment proceedings were to be stayed during this period.
The Tribunal failed to adjudicate all grounds raised by the appellant and did not provide its own findings, merely agreeing with the CIT(Appeals) order. It was imperative for the Tribunal to deal with the appellant's submissions, even summarily, and reject them with disclosed reasons.
The High Court held that the respondent failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act. The court found that the respondent's defense of stolen cheques was not sufficiently proven and that the onus was not on the complainant to prove financial capacity when the accused failed to raise a probable defense.
The High Court held that no fresh question of law arose for consideration as the issues were covered by its earlier decisions in similar cases involving the same assessee and the same Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The High Court held that no fresh question of law arose for consideration as the issues were covered by its earlier decisions in similar cases involving the same assessee and the same Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The Tribunal affirmed the Assessing Officer's finding that the donation was not substantiated, especially since the appellant failed to produce the Chairman of Learn for cross-examination. The High Court found no substantial question of law and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
The High Court held that the dispute between the parties, arising from the contract, should be resolved through the arbitration clause present in the agreement. The appellant's arguments regarding procedural amendments and previous judgments could be raised before the arbitrator.
The High Court modified the interim maintenance order, directing the respondent to pay an additional INR 10,000 per month for the children. This enhancement is to be paid until the Family Court makes a final decision.
The High Court held that since the issues raised by the Revenue were squarely covered by the Court's own prior decisions in M/s Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. Vs. DIT and Director of International Taxation Vs. New Skies Satellite BV, no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. The Court found no merit in entertaining the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the advertisement expenditure issue. For bank guarantee commission, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, relying on provisos to Sections 40(a)(ia) and 201, and a High Court decision.
The High Court held that the assessments made against the assessee would not survive. The Court reasoned that the present case is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The Court found that no question of law arose for consideration. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited. Consequently, the assessments made against the assessee would not survive. The High Court found that no question of law arises from the ITAT's decision. The operative direction was that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The principle established is that if a company undergoes amalgamation and this is duly informed to the Assessing Officer, subsequent assessments against the original entity may not be sustainable, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Maruti Suzuki India Limited case.
The High Court held that the Tribunal has the power to extend a stay beyond the period of 365 days, notwithstanding the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. The Court's reasoning is based on its prior decision in Pepsi Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., which established this principle. The ratio decidendi is that the Tribunal's power to grant stay is not strictly limited by the proviso, and it can extend the stay to ensure that the assessee is not prejudiced during the pendency of their appeal. The Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the grants were made under a sovereign agreement between the Governments of India and France, thus not attracting FCRA provisions. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer did not find any misuse of funds for purposes other than scientific research.
The Court found that the respondents had made substantial compliance with the previous judgments and there was no willful disobedience. The issue of incorrect pay fixation was left for appropriate proceedings, and the respondents were directed to pass orders on the petitioner's submitted documents.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of educational expenses incurred for the director's daughter, finding no nexus between the expenditure and the company's business. The court agreed with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of educational expenses incurred for the director's daughter, finding no nexus between the expenditure and the company's business. The court agreed with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of educational expenses incurred for the director's daughter, finding no nexus between the expenditure and the company's business. The court agreed with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The Court relied on its own previous decision in Pepsi Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr, 2015 376 ITR 87. In that judgment, this Court had ruled that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal possesses the power to extend a stay order beyond the period of 365 days, even in light of the second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal concurred with the DRP's finding of functional dissimilarity, noting the comparable's involvement in fund accounting, significant intangibles, and different employee profile leading to supernormal profits. As there were concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. This 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). This circular stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court. As the tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 50,00,000/-, which falls below the specified monetary threshold, the Court accepted the Department's stance of not pressing the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the prescribed monetary limit for tax effect, as per departmental circulars, will be treated as not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed, granting relief to the assessee by not adjudicating the merits.
The Tribunal held that the issue was purely factual and the CIT(Appeals) had concurrently found in favour of the assessee. The assessee had provided evidence for the sales returns, and the Assessing Officer had not granted sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of Rs. 40,88,589/- on account of sales tax paid on return sales.
The High Court held that the sanction for prosecution was granted by a competent authority, and the filing of the complaint by the Deputy Director was not premature. The court also found that the pendency of assessment proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution.
The ITAT correctly held that the payment for technical know-how was revenue in nature and allowable as a business deduction. The license was for a limited purpose and did not create an asset of enduring advantage for the assessee.
The High Court held that the ITAT was not justified in remanding the matter back to the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal should have decided the appeals itself, as no fresh facts were needed and the CIT (Appeals) had already opined on the merits.
The High Court held that the ITAT was not justified in remanding the matter back to the CIT (Appeals). The Tribunal should have decided the appeals itself, as no fresh facts were needed and the CIT (Appeals) had already opined on the merits.
The Tribunal held that assessments framed under Section 153A were bad in law as no search was conducted at the assessee's premises. It also ruled that loose papers/diaries do not constitute 'books of account' for Section 68 additions, citing Supreme Court precedent.