Loading High Court cases…
78 orders · Page 1 of 2
The High Court held that failure to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 144C, specifically the omission to pass a draft assessment order, renders the final assessment order without jurisdiction, null and void. Such a failure is not a curable defect.
The High Court allowed the appellant's application for early hearing and withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, granting the appellant liberty to avail the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Amnesty Scheme.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in not considering the application for additional evidence before passing its order. The Court also found that the scope of Section 254(2) and Section 260A are different, and the pendency of a rectification application does not bar an appeal.
The High Court held that the ITAT was correct in deleting the penalty. The court reasoned that if the quantum assessment itself is debatable, as indicated by the admission of the appeal by the High Court, then penalty proceedings cannot survive.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment was justified due to credible information from the CBI and subsequent witness statements contradicting the appellant's claims. The tribunal's decision to uphold the additions was not perverse.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not sustainable as no incriminating material related to the assessee was found during the search.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not sustainable as no incriminating material related to the assessee was found during the search.
The High Court held that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the ITAT when the appeal was taken up for hearing. The Court found that the miscellaneous application and supporting affidavits disclosed sufficient cause for non-appearance, specifically the sudden illness of the counsel handling the appeal. The Tribunal had inappropriately rejected the application without examining the merits of these submissions. The Court noted that the Tribunal's reasoning, focusing on prior adjournments and the lapse of time since the first hearing, was not germane to deciding the miscellaneous application under Rule 25. Furthermore, the Tribunal erroneously delved into the merits of the ex-parte decision, which was beyond the scope of an application for recall. The Court emphasized that the sufficiency of the cause for non-appearance was the only factor to be examined. The Court also took into account the petitioner's undertaking to apply under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT dismissing the miscellaneous application and the ex-parte final order were set aside, and the Revenue's appeal before the ITAT was restored to its original number.
The Delhi High Court noted that the Office Memorandums relied upon by the petitioner themselves provide an alternative effective remedy. Specifically, paragraph 4(C) of the Office Memorandum dated February 29, 2016, allows for a review petition to be filed before the jurisdictional Administrative Principal Commissioner of Income Tax / Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to avail this alternative remedy. The Court directed that if the petitioner files the review petition within two weeks, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax should decide it in accordance with the law within four weeks thereafter. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the arbitrariness of the 20% deposit requirement.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted the appellants liberty to avail benefits under the "Vivad se Vishwas" amnesty scheme. The appeals were disposed of with this liberty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the appeals, as they were withdrawn. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeals with the granted liberty.
The High Court accepted the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent assured the court that the petitioner's request for payment of interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would be processed within eight weeks in accordance with law. The court held the respondent bound by this undertaking. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of based on this assurance. The court did not make a determination on the legality of the initial non-payment of refunds or interest, as the matter was resolved through the respondent's undertaking. The primary relief granted was the commitment to process the interest payment.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the AAR's decision. The Court found that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, especially when it is in a standard pre-printed format and does not demonstrate specific application of mind to the questions raised by the applicant, does not constitute a bar under clause (i) of the proviso to Section 245R(2). The Court relied on previous judgments of the Delhi High Court in Hyosung Corporation vs. Authority for Advance Rulings & Ors. and Sage Publication Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), which held that such notices do not ipso facto attract the automatic rejection route under the proviso. The Court noted that Special Leave Petitions against these judgments were dismissed, rendering the issues no longer res integra. The Court also found the reliance on Sudhir Chandra Nawn inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was erroneous. It found that the transaction of receiving shares of an amalgamated company in lieu of shares of an amalgamating company constitutes a taxable event, irrespective of whether the shares were held as capital asset or stock-in-trade.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was erroneous. It found that the transaction of receiving shares of an amalgamated company in lieu of shares of an amalgamating company constitutes a taxable event, irrespective of whether the shares were held as capital asset or stock-in-trade.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was erroneous. It found that the transaction of receiving shares of the amalgamated company in lieu of shares of the amalgamating company constitutes a transfer and can result in taxable profit, irrespective of whether the shares were held as stock-in-trade or capital asset.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was erroneous. It found that the transaction of receiving shares of an amalgamated company in lieu of shares of an amalgamating company constitutes a transfer and can result in profit, irrespective of whether the shares were held as capital asset or stock-in-trade.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was erroneous. It found that the transaction of receiving shares of an amalgamated company in lieu of shares of an amalgamating company constitutes a taxable event, irrespective of whether the shares were held as capital asset or stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of STCL, agreeing that the transactions were bogus despite the AO initially invoking the wrong section. The High Court found no substantial question of law, noting concurrent factual findings against the assessee based on evidence of sham transactions.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of STCL, agreeing that the transactions were bogus despite the AO initially invoking the wrong section. The High Court found no substantial question of law, noting concurrent factual findings against the assessee based on evidence of sham transactions.
The Delhi High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed on account of low tax effect. The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) that the tax effect involved in the present case was lower than the threshold limit of Rupees One Crore (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-) as prescribed in Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, read with Circular No. 03/2018 and its amendments dated August 20, 2018, issued by the CBDT. The reasoning was solely based on the monetary threshold set by the CBDT for pursuing appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal due to low tax effect. It noted that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, which is the threshold limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
The Delhi High Court held that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs. 77,16,354/-. This amount is lower than the threshold limit of Rupees One Crore (Rs. 1,00,00,000/-) stipulated in CBDT Circular no. 17/2019 dated 8 August, 2019, read with Circular no. 03/2018 and its amendments dated 20th August, 2018. Consequently, the Court found the appeal to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case, as the dismissal was based solely on the monetary limit prescribed by the circulars.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. The Court noted that the income tax demand, including interest till December 31, 2001, amounted to Rs. 38,82,208/-. This amount was found to be below the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, read with Circular No. 03/2018 and its amendments dated August 20, 2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without delving into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals are liable to be dismissed on that ground.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue had a low tax effect and did not fall under any exceptions provided in the relevant CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect and did not fall within any exceptions provided by the CBDT circulars.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the finding that the tax effect in the appeals was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars for filing appeals before the High Court.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in refusing to allow the assessee to raise additional grounds under Rule 27. The assessee, as a respondent before the ITAT, was entitled to support the CIT(A)'s order on grounds decided against them, even without filing cross-objections.
The Tribunal held that Infosys Ltd. was functionally different due to its diversified profile and significant brand value. Wipro Technology Services Ltd. was excluded due to related party transactions. Persistent Systems Ltd. and Thirdware Solutions Ltd. were excluded due to lack of segmental information regarding software services versus software products.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petitions based on a statement made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. The respondent undertook to withdraw the impugned orders dated March 26, 2020, for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, along with all consequent orders. The respondent will now afford the petitioner an opportunity to reply to the show cause notices dated March 17, 2020. The petitioner is granted two weeks from the date the lockdown is withdrawn by the Government to submit its replies. Following the receipt of these replies, the respondent is at liberty to take further steps in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that this order was passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases and should not be treated as a precedent.
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with specific directions. Firstly, the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax Department, was directed to decide the review petitions filed by the petitioners after providing them an opportunity of being heard. This decision was to be communicated through a speaking order within four weeks from the date of the order (March 20, 2020). Secondly, the Income Tax Department was restrained from enforcing any decision that might be adverse to the petitioners for two weeks after supplying them with copies of the review orders. Thirdly, the petitioners were required to file an undertaking before the Court within two working days, assuring that they would not alienate movable or immovable assets up to Rs. 10 crores during the interim period. The court did not decide on the merits of the review petitions themselves, but rather on the process for their disposal and interim protection.
The High Court held that the ITAT was not justified in remanding the matter to the AO/TPO for determining the ALP of alleged international transactions involving AMP expenses. The Revenue failed to establish the existence of such an international transaction.
The High Court allowed the respondent-assessee's application for disposal of the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. The Court noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 8,76,695/-, which is significantly below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for filing appeals by the Department to the High Court, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court also observed that the Department-appellant had not filed any reply to the assessee's application despite notice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. No specific issue regarding the merits of the ITAT's order was decided.
The High Court allowed the application for early hearing and dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. The Court noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was Rs. 68,59,340/-, which is below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for filing appeals to the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Department had not filed any reply to the application, despite notice. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT circulars are to be dismissed on grounds of low tax effect, provided the Department does not contest the applicability of the circular or the tax effect.
The High Court allowed the application for early hearing and dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the Respondent had filed an application for early hearing, stating that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. The tax effect in the present appeal was Rs. 68,59,340/-, which was below this limit. The Court observed that the Department had accepted notice of the application but had not filed any reply. Consequently, the Court found no reason to proceed with the appeal on merits and dismissed it on the ground of low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) enhancement of the assessee's cost base by considering the cost of goods manufactured and exported by third-party vendors was unjustified. The TNMM should be applied with reference to the costs incurred by the assessee, not by third parties or associated enterprises.
The High Court held that the CIT(E) cannot direct registration under a specific category and that the Tribunal did not err in striking down the conditions imposed by the CIT(E). The Tribunal did not replace its satisfaction with that of the CIT(E).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding the case covered by previous ITAT decisions. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting the lack of cogent material to fasten liability and the failure to produce subsequent orders as directed.
The Tribunal correctly applied the ratio of Supreme Court decisions regarding commercial profits and efficiency gains, holding that amounts for consumer benefit do not form part of the assessee's real profit. Furthermore, the Tribunal rightly relied on a CBDT circular and High Court decisions to allow deductions under Section 80 IA on enhanced profits due to disallowances.
The High Court held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is excluded in the computation of income for an insurance company under Section 44 read with the first schedule. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.
The High Court of Delhi held that the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal are squarely covered by its own prior decision in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Delhi v. All India Football Federation, ITA No. 246/2016, decided on 29.05.2017, which dealt with assessment year 2009-10. Following this precedent, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the current appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court of Delhi held that the question of law regarding the Tribunal's power to extend the period of stay beyond 365 days had already been explained and read down by the same court in the case of Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (376 ITR 87). Therefore, the court concluded that the question of law urged in the present appeal did not arise for its consideration. While the appeal was dismissed on this technical ground, the Tribunal was directed to expedite the hearing of the case and deliver its final verdict with utmost despatch. No specific finding was made on the merits of the underlying tax dispute.
The High Court held that the period of limitation for completing assessments under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act cannot be enlarged by judicial pronouncements. Assessments completed beyond the prescribed time limits were quashed.
The High Court held that the period of limitation for completing assessments under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act cannot be enlarged by judicial pronouncements. Assessments completed beyond the prescribed time limits were quashed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for its consideration. The Court noted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, which the Revenue was appealing, was based on its earlier decisions. Crucially, these earlier decisions had been affirmed by the Delhi High Court itself in the case of Director of Income-tax, International Taxation v. GE Packaged Power Inc. Therefore, the present appeal was found to be covered by this established precedent. The High Court concluded that given the binding nature of the prior High Court decision on the same issue, there was no novel legal point requiring adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without delving into the merits of the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal on the issue of attributing global profit at 35% instead of 75% to the Indian PE. The High Court found this issue to be covered by its previous decision in a similar case.
The High Court noted that the assessee's claim regarding the project completion method and the timing of revenue recognition was not adversely commented upon by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the questions of law raised by the appellant did not arise for consideration.