Loading High Court cases…
357 orders · Page 2 of 8
The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had held that the amendment to Section 14A via the Finance Act 2022 is not retrospective.
The High Court noted a previous decision by a coordinate bench which dismissed a similar appeal. The present appeal was closed with the understanding that parties would abide by any different conclusion reached by the Supreme Court in a pending SLP.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's finding that no profits could be attributed to the PE due to the assessee's global net loss was a finding of fact. The court also noted that questions regarding PE and profit attribution would only arise if the assessee made a profit, as per Article 7(1) of the India-Finland DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 14A was unsustainable in the absence of recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim. The appeal is listed for further hearing.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay of 81 days in re-filing the appeal. The court also issued notice to the respondent assessee and listed the appeal for further hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The appeal was admitted, and a question of law was framed regarding whether a sales tax subsidy was a capital or revenue receipt.
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the revenue's appeal was upheld. The court found that the AO of the searched person had not generated a satisfaction note, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 153C.
The Tribunal correctly held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows CSR expenses as business deductions, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the revenue.
The Tribunal correctly held that the amendment to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, specifically Explanation 2, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, CSR expenses incurred before the amendment could be allowed as deductions.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's application to withdraw the petition. The Court noted that the withdrawal was sought without prejudice to the petitioner's rights and contentions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all his pleas before the learned Trial Court. The next date of hearing, February 28, 2024, was cancelled.
The Tribunal correctly held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, which disallows CSR expenses as business deductions, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Circulars issued by the CBDT are binding on the revenue.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to approach the jurisdictional High Court as per law.
The High Court held that the ITAT correctly followed existing High Court judgments on AMP expenses, even though they were under appeal. The court found no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
The tribunal found the bus driver negligent and awarded compensation. The High Court enhanced the compensation by including future prospects and adjusted the interest rate, while upholding the deduction for personal expenses.
The Delhi High Court held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 cannot override the express provisions of Section 14A.
The High Court held that the amounts retained by banks for credit card processing services are not commission under Section 194H. The relationship between the bank and the assessee is principal-to-principal, not agency.
The Delhi High Court held that the amounts retained by banks for credit card processing are fees for banking services and not commission under Section 194H. The relationship between the bank and the assessee is principal-to-principal, not agency.
The High Court held that the amounts retained by banks are fees for banking services and not commission or brokerage under Section 194H. The relationship between the bank and the assessee is principal-to-principal, not agency.
The tribunal held that the injured's monthly income was reasonably assessed and the cost of prosthetic was also justified. The interest awarded on future treatment costs was also deemed appropriate.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the assessing officer's conclusion was based on conjecture and lacked cogent material. The Court noted that the ITAT had considered the evidence, including online purchase, banking channel payments, dematerialized shares, and deficient inquiry by the AO.
The High Court has not decided any substantive issues on merits in the provided text. The Court has only condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals and granted exemption, subject to just exceptions. Subsequently, notice has been issued to the respondent for a future date. No findings on any specific grounds of appeal, reasoning, or ratio decidendi have been recorded. The operative directions are limited to procedural steps for the continuation of the appeals.
The High Court has issued notices to the respondent, M/s Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd., for all modes of service, including dasti, returnable on July 24, 2023. The applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals have been allowed, and the applications for exemption have also been allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court has not yet decided the substantive issues of the appeals, as the matter is at the stage of issuing notice to the respondent. Therefore, no finding on the merits of the case has been recorded, and no ratio decidendi can be extracted at this stage. The operative direction is to issue notice to the respondent.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the applications. The Court granted the Revenue time to examine the law on fringe benefit tax and re-notified the matter for further hearing.
The High Court granted the Revenue time to examine the law on fringe benefit tax. The appeals were re-notified for further hearing.
The Delhi High Court noted the Revenue's submission that the ITAT had relied on its co-ordinate bench orders for previous assessment years, which are pending challenge before the High Court. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal. Instead, it issued notice to the respondent assessee, returnable on 21st March, 2023, for all modes of service, including dasti. The Court also condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal based on the averments in the application. No specific finding on the core issue of the ITAT's reliance on its own previous orders was made in this order; the matter is listed for further hearing.
The High Court granted the Revenue's request for more time to examine the law on fringe benefit tax. The appeals were adjourned for further hearing.
The High Court adjourned the hearing of the appeals to a future date at the request of the appellant's counsel. No substantive decision on the merits of the case was made in this order.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, relying on its own judgment in Cheminvest Ltd. The court affirmed that Section 14A applies only when there is actual receipt of income that does not form part of the total income.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeals and issued notice to the respondent assessee. The court framed substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation and application of Section 142(2C) and Section 292B of the Act.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeals for consideration and issued notice to the respondent assessee. The court will hear the matter for disposal on a future date.
The High Court, upon being informed by the revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the appeals was below the monetary threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular 17/2019, decided to dismiss the appeals. The reasoning was based on the principle that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by the circular, are not to be pressed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issues were left undecided; the decision was based on the admitted low tax effect.
The Delhi High Court held that the appeals should be dismissed as not pressed on account of low tax effect. The reasoning was based on the appellant's (Revenue's) admission that the tax effect in the present appeals was below the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as stipulated in Circular 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No specific issues were decided on merits, and no part of the judgment was expressly left undecided.
The High Court admitted the appeals filed by the Revenue. It also issued notice to the respondent assessee and directed both parties to file written submissions.
The Delhi High Court adjourned the hearing of the appeals to a future date. No substantive decision or ruling was made on the merits of the case during this listing.
The High Court held that the leasehold rights in the plot constituted a capital asset and the compensation received on cancellation was a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt. Therefore, the AO's original order was correct and the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unjustified.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. The court followed its own precedents, even though the issue was pending before the Supreme Court.
The tribunal held that when the AO initiates penalty proceedings in the assessment order, that date is the relevant date for calculating the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c). The penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed six-month period from the end of the month of initiation.
The tribunal held that when the AO initiates penalty proceedings in the assessment order, that date is the relevant date for calculating the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c). The penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed six-month period from the end of the month of initiation.
The tribunal held that when the AO initiates penalty proceedings in the assessment order, that date is the relevant date for calculating the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c). The penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed six-month period from the end of the month of initiation.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that for non-abated assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the search. The court followed its own precedents, even though the issue was pending before the Supreme Court.
The Delhi High Court held that appeals against ITAT decisions lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the facts were indistinguishable from a prior High Court judgment that ruled in favor of the assessee. The court noted there was no stay on the prior judgment, despite it being challenged in the Supreme Court.
The High Court admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law regarding the extension of time under Section 142(2C) and the validity of the Assessing Officer's actions under Section 292B.
The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the matter was covered by a previous High Court judgment. The appeal was dismissed, but it was clarified that the order would abide by the Supreme Court's decision.
The High Court held that the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT was due to a bonafide mistake and should be condoned in the interest of justice. The Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the appeals for hearing on merits.
The High Court held that the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT was due to a bonafide mistake and should be condoned in the interest of justice. The Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the appeals for hearing on merits.
The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, dismissing the appeal. However, the order was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the pending appeal.
The Tribunal held that preparatory work for tendering purposes before entering into a contract cannot be counted towards the threshold period for establishing a PE. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings that work commenced after the contract date and the duration did not exceed twelve months.
The Tribunal held that preparatory work for tendering purposes before entering into a contract cannot be counted towards the threshold period for establishing a PE. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings that work commenced after the contract date and the duration did not exceed twelve months.
The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, dismissing the appeal. However, the order was made subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in pending appeals.