Loading High Court cases…
107 orders · Page 1 of 3
The High Court declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in putting in place an interim arrangement, finding no reason to intervene. However, considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within three months of receiving the order. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy and that the rights and contentions of all parties were left open. The writ petition and application were disposed of with this direction.
The Delhi High Court, while acknowledging the limited relief sought in the writ petition, directed Respondent No. 1 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) to pass the necessary appeal effect orders in pursuance to the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Court further directed the respondent to grant the consequential refunds along with applicable interest, in accordance with the law, within a period of twelve weeks. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original tax disputes but focused on ensuring compliance with the prior appellate authorities' decisions and statutory provisions for refund processing. The primary reasoning was to alleviate the financial prejudice faced by the petitioner due to the delay in implementing the appellate orders. The ratio decidendi is that authorities must comply with appellate orders and process refunds expeditiously to avoid undue hardship to assessees.
The petitioner, M/s UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise all contentions and submissions before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Court granted this liberty. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The Court explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy, and the rights and contentions of all parties were left open. The petitioner was granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law if aggrieved by the DRP's decision. The specific issue regarding the validity of the unsigned and undated transfer pricing order was not decided on merits by the High Court, as the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition to pursue remedies before the DRP.
The High Court held that the Government is bound to follow the rules and standards it sets, and their actions can be invalidated if they fail to do so. The Court reiterated that the Office Memorandums dated 29th February, 2016, read with the Office Memorandum dated 25th August, 2017, stipulate that the Assessing Officer shall normally grant a stay of demand till the disposal of the first appeal upon payment of 20% of the disputed demand. If a higher lump sum amount is deemed warranted, the Assessing Officer must provide reasons, demonstrating that the case falls under paragraph 4(B) of the Office Memorandum dated 29th February, 2016. The Court found that the orders for adjustment of refunds and stay of demand did not provide any special reasons for recovering an amount exceeding 20% of the outstanding demand. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to seek pre-deposit of only 20% of the disputed demand. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demands for Assessment Year 2016-17 within six weeks, after verifying the facts stated in the writ petition. The issue of the pending appeal was implicitly addressed by directing the refund based on the principles of stay of demand.
The High Court held that the issues raised in the present appeal were already decided by a Coordinate Bench in a similar case (ITA 578/2016). Since there was no stay on that earlier judgment, the present appeal was dismissed.
The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's order granting conditional leave to defend. The court noted serious contradictions in the appellant's stand and doubted the good faith of the appellant's defence.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no substantial question of law. It upheld the ITAT's decision that there was no corroborative evidence or statement to prove that payments beyond the cheque amount were received by the assessee, and no nexus between the seized documents (found from a third party) and the assessee.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, confirming that no addition could be made under Section 68 in proceedings under Section 153C for a completed assessment year without any incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue admitted that the additions were not based on seized material, thus the appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the ITAT's decision. The High Court found no perversity in the ITAT's findings that no individual inquiry was conducted, the assessee's broker was not examined, and the shares were freely traded with supporting company financials.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the penalty. The High Court found no infirmity in the ITAT's order, noting that the issue of using single-year data was debatable at the time and that making an incorrect claim does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Delhi High Court accepted the statement and undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Court noted that the respondents agreed to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20% of the demand, as per the CBDT Office Memorandum dated July 31, 2017, within eight weeks. Based on this undertaking, the Court held that the respondents were bound by their statement. Consequently, the writ petition, along with pending applications, was disposed of as satisfied. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the initial 100% recovery or the procedural lapse of not issuing a notice under Section 245, but rather resolved the matter based on the Revenue's commitment to refund the excess amount. The operative direction was for the refund of the excess amount within eight weeks.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not the sole owner and her rights were subject to a 99-year lease. It was for the parties to settle the sale consideration, and the revenue authorities had no say in dictating it.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a charitable institution and its activities, including running a printing press and newspaper, do not constitute trade, commerce, or business with a profit motive. Therefore, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not attracted.
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, explicitly stating that the question of law remains open for future determination.
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, explicitly stating that the question of law remains open for future determination.
The Court allowed the applications and disposed of the appeals. Liberty was granted to the respondent to settle the dispute under the VSV Act, with the option for the revenue to revive the appeals if settlement failed.
The High Court allowed the applications for withdrawal of appeals. The appeals were disposed of with liberty to the respondent to settle under the VSV Act, and liberty to revive the appeals if not settled.
The Delhi High Court accepted the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The Court directed that the Petitioner's rectification application dated 14th May, 2020, shall be disposed of within six weeks from the date of the order. The respondents were held bound by this undertaking. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-disposal of the rectification application within the statutory period and the consequential demand raised. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the rectification application itself but focused on ensuring its timely disposal. The Court listed the matter for compliance on January 12, 2022.
The High Court allowed the applications to withdraw the appeals, granting liberty to the respondent to settle the dispute under the VSV Act. The revenue was given liberty to revive the appeals if the matter was not settled under the VSV Act.
The High Court held that the exclusion of the comparable company was covered by previous judgments and that the transfer pricing adjustment for interest on receivables was not warranted. This was because advance payments significantly outweighed any delayed receivables, making the adjustment factually uncalled for.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, granting the petitioner liberty to avail of its alternate efficacious remedy. The Court noted that it was not denied by the petitioner that similar issues had led to demands for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, which the petitioner had challenged before the CIT(A). The impugned order dated 26.08.2021 was passed in purported compliance with the Court's previous order, holding that the jurisdictional conditions precedent for invoking Section 201 of the Act were satisfied. Given that the petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedies for two assessment years, the Court did not deem it proper to entertain the present petitions challenging the ITO's finding at that stage. The petitioner was advised to challenge the final order passed by the ITO, which fastens any liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), including on the grounds raised in the present petitions, by way of an appeal in accordance with the Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by either party, and all such submissions would remain open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the impugned order dated 26.08.2021 was passed in purported compliance with the Court's earlier order and held that the jurisdictional conditions precedent for invoking Section 201 of the Act were satisfied. Since the petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedies for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 on similar issues, the Court did not deem it proper to entertain the present petitions at this stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the final order passed by the respondent no.1, including on the grounds raised in the present petitions, by way of an appeal. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by either party.
The High Court found that the PCIT had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition without providing any reasons on merits, solely stating it was premature because the Revenue still had time to appeal the ITAT judgment in Giesecke & Devrient (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted that the impugned order did not apply its mind to the controversy or pass a reasoned order. Consequently, the impugned order dated March 31, 2021, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondent-PCIT, Delhi-7, for passing a reasoned order within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, leaving all rights and contentions of the parties open for future proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. It noted that the impugned order dated 26.08.2021 was passed in purported compliance with the Court's order dated 19.03.2021, holding that the jurisdictional conditions precedent for invoking Section 201 of the Act were satisfied. The Court observed that the petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedies for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 on similar issues. Therefore, the Court deemed it improper to entertain the present petitions challenging the ITO's finding at this stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the final order passed by the ITO, which fastens any liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A), including on the grounds raised in the present petitions, by way of an appeal in accordance with the Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by either party, and all such submissions would remain open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. The petitions were dismissed, granting the petitioner leave to avail of its alternate efficacious remedy.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, granting leave to the petitioner to avail of its alternate efficacious remedy. The Court noted that the petitioner did not deny that similar issues for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 had led to demands which were challenged before the CIT(A). The impugned order dated 26.08.2021 was passed in purported compliance with the court's earlier order, holding that the jurisdictional conditions precedent for invoking Section 201 of the Act were satisfied. Given that the petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedies for prior assessment years, the Court did not deem it proper to entertain the present petitions challenging the ITO's finding at this stage. The petitioner was advised to challenge the final order passed by the ITO, including on the grounds raised in the present petitions, by way of an appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by either party, and all such submissions would remain open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the Impugned Order dated 26.08.2021 was passed in purported compliance with the Court's earlier order dated 19.03.2021, and it held that the jurisdictional conditions precedent for invoking Section 201 of the Act were satisfied. Since the petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedies for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 on similar issues, the Court did not deem it proper to entertain the present petitions challenging the ITO's finding at that stage. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by either party, and all such submissions would remain open to adjudication in appropriate proceedings. The petitioner was granted leave to avail of its alternate remedy of appeal against the final order passed by the respondent no.1, which would include challenging the grounds raised in the present petitions.
The High Court set aside the impugned award regarding the proof of income and compensation calculation. The case was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh determination of income and compensation after adducing further evidence.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned order dated August 26, 2021, was passed in purported compliance with the Court's order dated March 19, 2021, and that it found the jurisdictional conditions precedent for invoking Section 201 of the Act to be satisfied. The Court noted that the petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedies for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 on similar issues. Therefore, the Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the present petitions challenging the ITO's finding at this stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the final order passed by the ITO, including the grounds raised in the present petitions, by way of an appeal in accordance with the Act. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions made by either party, and all such submissions would remain open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. The petitions were dismissed, granting leave to the petitioner to avail of its alternate efficacious remedy.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities, despite generating revenue from testing and consultancy, were not carried out with the intent of earning profit. The primary object of the association was to improve public transport and road safety.
The High Court held that the stipulation under Rule 5D(4) for filing the statement of donations with the audit report was not mandatory. Concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the reopening was unjustified and based on a mere change of opinion were upheld.
The High Court noted that neither the CIT(A) nor the ITAT had considered the appellant's defense regarding the identity, creditworthiness of lenders, and genuineness of loans under Section 68. Therefore, the matter was remanded.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the appeals. It noted that similar appeals by the Revenue had already been dismissed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arose in the appeals. It noted that similar appeals by the Revenue had already been dismissed. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the present appeal raised no substantial questions of law. It found that subsequent Supreme Court judgments had rendered the reassessment proceedings infructuous, making it necessary to dismiss the appeal in the interest of justice.
The High Court held that the corporate veil of DMRC could be lifted to hold the Union Ministry and GNCTD liable for the award's obligations. The court issued specific directions for the Union Ministry and GNCTD to facilitate DMRC's payment of the award amount, including providing sovereign guarantees or repatriating funds.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the advance received was in the nature of a trade advance for booking commercial space. It was also noted that the company owed money to the assessee, not the other way around, and the transaction was in the normal course of business.
The High Court found no merit in the appeals, noting that a previous appeal by the appellant for Assessment Year 2007-08, which involved similar issues of comparable exclusion, was dismissed by the Court. The Court found no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court found no merit in the appeals, noting that a previous appeal by the appellant for Assessment Year 2007-08, which involved similar issues of comparable exclusion, was dismissed by the Court. The Court found no substantial question of law arose.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found during the search was correct and not perverse. Therefore, no additions could be made under Section 153A as the assessments were not abated and the Kabul Chawla judgment applied.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, a Section 25 Company wholly owned by the Government, used its funds exclusively for the benefit of the SC community in Delhi. This satisfied the conditions for exemption under Section 10(26B).
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, and no assessment was pending on the date of the search. The High Court agreed that the tax authorities' findings were not perverse.