Loading High Court cases…
357 orders · Page 3 of 8
The High Court held that for assessment under Section 153A, incriminating material found during the search is essential, especially when original assessments have concluded and not abated. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent assessee, Sh. Tushar Kumar, returnable on January 09, 2023. The Court acknowledged that the present appeal by the Revenue challenges an ITAT order that deleted additions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Revenue's argument hinges on the ITAT's reliance on its own prior decision in PCIT vs. GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted that the Revenue has pending appeals before it concerning the GTM Builders decision. No specific finding or decision on the merits of the additions or the ITAT's deletion was made in this order; the proceedings are at the notice stage. The operative direction was to issue notice to the respondent.
The High Court held that for assessment under Section 153A, incriminating material found during the search is essential, especially when original assessments have concluded and not abated. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessment was not abated, no addition could be made under Section 153A of the Act. The High Court agreed with the concurrent findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the addition was unsustainable due to documentary evidence and the AO's failure to provide proper opportunity. The High Court found no substantial question of law due to concurrent findings of fact.
The High Court held that the issue was already decided in favour of the Assessee in a previous judgment, Sheraton International Inc. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the issue was already decided in favour of the Assessee in a previous judgment, Sheraton International Inc. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the addition was unsustainable due to documentary evidence and the AO's failure to provide proper opportunity. The High Court found no substantial question of law due to concurrent findings of fact.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be disturbed under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were rightly deleted.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be disturbed under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were rightly deleted.
The High Court held that the ITAT's exclusion of the comparables was based on detailed analysis and reasoning, including functional dissimilarity. The court also noted that the issue of comparables is a question of fact, and no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be disturbed under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were rightly deleted.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be disturbed under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were rightly deleted.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be disturbed under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were rightly deleted.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be disturbed under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were rightly deleted.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be disturbed under Section 153A if incriminating material is found during a search. Since no such material was found, the additions were rightly deleted.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, stating that the facts were indistinguishable from a previous High Court judgment in favor of the assessee. Despite the pending Supreme Court appeal against the precedent, no stay was in effect.
The High Court held that at the stage of Section 12AA registration, the CIT(E) should not examine the application of income, which is for the Assessing Officer. The ITAT's findings that the society's objects were charitable and it was running a school were not disputed.
The Court held that while the appellant has a disability, it cannot be presumed he has no income. Access to his father's business and his involvement in it were noted. The interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court was deemed appropriate to meet the respondent's routine requirements.
The ITAT deleted the disallowance of AMP expenditure, finding the DRP's direction to the AO impermissible and lacking factual basis for violation. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the Bright Line Test (BLT) for transfer pricing adjustments was negatived by a prior court judgment, and the AMP expenditure was revenue in nature.
The High Court acknowledged that an identical issue was pending before it in another appeal. Consequently, it issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for hearing.
The High Court noted that a similar appeal by the revenue was pending before it and was listed for a future date. Consequently, the court issued notice to the respondents.
The High Court acknowledged that identical issues were pending before it in another appeal. Consequently, it issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for hearing and disposal on a future date, explicitly stating no adjournment would be granted.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision to delete the AMP expenditure additions, stating there was no international transaction for brand promotion. The Court also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, as no exempt income was earned by the assessee.
The ITAT correctly deleted the addition of Rs. 20 crores as the MOU pertained to Devender and not the assessee, and the assessee's presumption was rebutted by evidence. The High Court found no substantial question of law.
The Tribunal held that no additions could be made based on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborative material. It also noted that the assessment years in question were not pending at the time of search and the seized documents pertained to later years.
The Tribunal held that no additions could be made based on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborative material. It also noted that the assessment years in question were not pending at the time of search and the seized documents pertained to later years.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, no addition can be made under Section 153A for non-abated assessments. The court followed its previous judgments in Kabul Chawla and Bhadani Financiers.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was due to the Revenue's persistent failure to list a related appeal against a prior ITAT order, despite clear and peremptory directions from the Court.
The Delhi High Court held that the business rights acquired constitute an intangible asset eligible for depreciation. Similarly, the IP rights acquired were also deemed eligible for depreciation, even without formal registration.
The Delhi High Court held that the present appeal was infructuous. This decision was based on the submission by the assessee's counsel that the matter had been resolved under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and Form-5 had been issued to the assessee. The court took on record the photocopies of Forms 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which substantiated the claim of settlement. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as infructuous, without delving into the merits of the original dispute, which was otherwise covered by the precedent in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla. No specific finding was made on the ITAT's order itself, as the appeal's pendency was mooted by the settlement.
The High Court held that the Revenue failed to provide specific facts differentiating the current assessment year from the previous one. Both appellate authorities found the facts to be similar, and the previous year's decision had attained finality.
The Delhi High Court held that interest income derived from export proceeds of an eligible undertaking is eligible for deduction under Section 10A. The Court concurred with previous High Court judgments on this matter.
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.
The Delhi High Court held that interest income earned from fixed deposits, which were derived from export proceeds of an eligible undertaking, is eligible for deduction under Section 10A. The Court followed its previous decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. American Express India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has not rendered a decision on the merits of the appeal in this excerpt. The order is procedural, directing the issuance of notice to the respondent and granting them permission to file additional documents. The court has also directed both parties to file written synopses before the next date of hearing. The appeal has been listed for further consideration on January 18, 2023. No findings on any issues, reasoning, or operative directions have been provided in this order.
The Delhi High Court held that dividend income, even if eligible for tax rebate under a DTAA, forms part of the total income. Therefore, expenditure incurred in relation to such income is not disallowable under Section 14A as it does not represent income that does not form part of the total income.
The High Court held that the issues of receivables and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) were essentially questions of fact. The ITAT's findings on these issues were not perverse, and thus no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that Section 14A is not attracted when the dividend income, though forming part of the total income, is effectively exempt from tax due to DTAA provisions like tax sparing credit. The dividend income is not considered 'excluded income' for the purpose of Section 14A.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that additions under Section 153A for concluded assessments can only be made if incriminating material is found during a search. The court relied on its previous judgments.
The High Court agreed with the appellate authorities that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction could not be doubted. It found that the investor companies were assessed and their investments verified, and the funds were received via account payee cheques.
The Delhi High Court held that until the Arbitral Tribunal passed a final award determining ownership, the interest income could not be considered crystallized in the assessee's hands. Therefore, it could not be taxed as the assessee's income.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act requires actual receipt of exempt income for disallowance of related expenses. The court found no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating the issue was covered by its own prior decision in the assessee's own case. This prior decision, though challenged in the Supreme Court, had no stay.
The High Court held that the present appeal was covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case, despite those decisions being challenged before the Supreme Court. As there was no stay on the previous judgments, the appeal was dismissed.
The Delhi High Court held that the present appeals were covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's own case. Despite the SLP filed before the Supreme Court, there was no stay on the earlier judgment.
The Delhi High Court held that the present appeals were covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Despite the Revenue's challenge to that decision before the Supreme Court, no stay was granted.
The Delhi High Court held that the present appeals were covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Despite the Revenue's challenge to that decision before the Supreme Court, no stay was granted.
The High Court held that the questions of law raised were covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Despite the pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court, there was no stay on the High Court's earlier judgments.
The High Court held that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both dated July 20, 2022, for Assessment Year 2014-15, were set aside. This decision was based on the acknowledgement by the revenue that the notices were issued in the name of Sare Marketing Private Limited, which had merged with the petitioner, Sumant Investments Private Limited, prior to the issuance of the notices. The court accepted the petitioner's submission that a notice issued to a non-existent entity is void. The revenue was granted liberty to take further steps if permitted by law, and the petitioner was given the liberty to pursue remedies if aggrieved by any future actions. The writ petition and the application were disposed of accordingly.