Loading High Court cases…
357 orders · Page 4 of 8
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated March 24, 2022, for the assessment year 2018-19. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of the order. This fresh order is to be passed in accordance with the law, after considering the reply of the petitioner, which the petitioner was directed to re-file within one week. 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 principle established is that non-compliance with the mandatory notice period under Section 148A(b) renders subsequent proceedings, including the order under Section 148A(d), liable to be set aside, necessitating a fresh adjudication after affording the assessee the due statutory period to respond. The operative direction was to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
The Delhi High Court held that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2013-14, which had not been assailed by the Revenue in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had attained finality. Consequently, the inaction of the respondents in granting the refund was found to be in contravention of Sections 240 and 244A of the Act. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the appeal effect order of the ITAT's decision within twelve weeks of receiving the order. The Assessing Officer was also directed to grant the consequential refund of tax paid/deposited by the petitioner, along with applicable interest, in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Court held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were not time-barred. It referred to its decision in Touchstone Holdings Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi, which stated that the time limit for issuing reassessment notices for AY 2013-14 was extended until June 30, 2021. Since the initial notice was issued within this extended period, the first proviso to Section 149(1) was not attracted. The Court also found that the notice under Section 148A(b) and the order under Section 148A(d) sufficiently identified the financial transactions in Mahanivesh, the alleged bogus LTCG, and the nature of the scrip as a penny stock, thus establishing a live link. However, the Court noted that the detailed report of the Investigation Wing was not provided to the petitioner along with the Section 148A(b) notice, despite the petitioner requesting it. This denied the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond to the findings in the report concerning her transactions with Allied Nippon Limited and Lawrence Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated June 30, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated June 30, 2022, issued under Section 148. The matter was remanded with a direction for the petitioner to file an additional reply responding to the report's findings within two weeks, after which the Assessing Officer would pass an order under Section 148A(b) within eight weeks. The AO was directed to decide the matter on merits without being influenced by the Court's observations, except on the issue of limitation.
The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both dated July 27, 2022, for Assessment Year 2016-17, were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits within eight weeks. The Court reasoned that while the revenue indicated a willingness to remand, the assessee's primary contention regarding the violation of natural justice needed to be addressed by a fresh adjudication. The petitioner/assessee was granted liberty to file all supporting documents, including sale deeds, ledger documents, and bank statements, within three weeks. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving those questions open for the assessing authority to investigate and decide.
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.
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 ITAT order dated April 23, 2021, had attained finality as it was not assailed by the Revenue in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the inaction of the respondents in granting the refund was found to be in contravention of Sections 240 and 244A of the Act. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass an appeal effect order for the ITAT's decision for assessment year 2004-05 within twelve weeks of receiving the order. The Assessing Officer was also directed to grant the consequential refund of tax paid/deposited by the petitioner along with applicable interest, in accordance with the law.
The High Court found that all authorities below had concurrent findings of fact that the appellant could not prove receipt of administrative services. The court also noted that each assessment year is judged on its own facts and evidence.
The High Court determined that the market value of the acquired land should be Rs. 2,07,500 per Bigha. This enhanced compensation was to be applied uniformly to all similarly acquired land in the four villages mentioned, including those who had not initially applied for enhanced compensation.
The High Court held that it has the power to pass a pro-tem order for security payments, even without an exhaustive examination of merits. The court found the bank guarantee provided by Oppo in Germany to be inadequate and not amenable to Indian jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the seized documents, such as annual reports and share certificates, found at the issuing company's premises were not incriminating for the assessment years in question. It further noted that the genuineness of share capital was accepted by lower authorities and there was no live link between seized material and additions.
The High Court held that the ITAT's concurrent findings of fact that no incriminating material was found were justified. The Court agreed that the investor companies had sufficient net worth and that the statement of Rajesh Agarwal could not be relied upon without cross-examination.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that no incriminating material was found to sustain the additions. The court agreed that the investor companies had sufficient net worth and that the statement of Sh. Rajesh Agarwal could not be relied upon without cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that share certificates, even if original, merely record disclosed transactions and are not inherently incriminating. The Court agreed that no incriminating material was found, and the investor companies had sufficient networth.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in its findings that no incriminating material was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to sustain the additions. The Court agreed that the investor companies had sufficient net worth and that the statement of a third party, Mr. Rajesh Agarwal, could not be relied upon as the assessee was denied cross-examination.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in its conclusion as no incriminating material was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to sustain the additions. The Court agreed that the investor companies had sufficient net worth and that the statement of a third party could not be relied upon without cross-examination.
The High Court held that no incriminating material was found to sustain the additions. It agreed with the ITAT that the investor companies had sufficient net worth and that the statement of the individual could not be relied upon as the assessee was denied cross-examination.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in its findings as no incriminating material was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to sustain the additions. The Court agreed that the investor companies had sufficient net worth and that the statement relied upon by the Revenue could not be used as evidence without cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the share certificates, even if original, merely recorded disclosed transactions and were not inherently incriminating. The High Court agreed that no incriminating material was found, investor companies had sufficient net worth, and the assessee was denied cross-examination of a key witness.
The tribunal modified the compensation amount, enhancing it by increasing future prospects and loss of consortium. The rate of interest awarded was deemed reasonable.
The Delhi High Court held that since the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2015-16 had not been assailed by the Revenue in appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, they had attained finality. The Court found the inaction of the respondents in granting the consequential refunds to be in contravention of Sections 240 and 244A of the Act. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the appeal effect orders within twelve weeks of receiving the order and to grant any consequential refund of tax paid/deposited by the petitioner along with applicable interest in accordance with law.
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for waiver of cost. The court accepted the reason provided by the respondent for the delay in compliance.
The Delhi High Court held that since the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2015-16 had not been challenged by the Revenue by filing appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, these orders had attained finality. The Court found that the inaction of the respondents in granting the consequential refunds and interest was in contravention of Sections 240 and 244A of the Act. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass the appeal effect orders for both assessment years within twelve weeks of receiving the order. The Assessing Officer was also directed to grant any consequential refund of tax paid/deposited by the petitioner, along with applicable interest, in accordance with the law.
The High Court held that the issues raised were covered by its own previous judgment in the assessee's own case. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, stating that the trademark ownership and fees charged did not alter the Society's charitable purpose.
The High Court held that the ITAT and CIT(A) had made concurrent findings of fact. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent regarding mixed funds for Section 14A and noted that documents for Section 32 were indeed submitted to the AO and considered by the appellate authorities.
The Delhi High Court held that the issues raised were covered by its previous decisions in similar cases. The Court noted that there was no stay on those judgments, and therefore, the present appeals did not raise any substantial question of law.
The Delhi High Court held that the appeal was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue was covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other similar cases. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that the issues raised were covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. Despite a review petition pending, the Supreme Court's judgment remained effective.
The Delhi High Court held that the issues raised were covered by its previous decisions in similar cases. The Court noted that there was no stay on those judgments, and therefore, the present appeals did not raise any substantial question of law.
The Tribunal held that the creditworthiness of the sundry creditors was established and the transactions were at arm's length. It also found that the incentive refund was not penal in nature and did not violate any law, thus not hit by Section 37(1).
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the issue of intra-group services was covered by a previous judgment in the assessee's own case. The court also agreed with the concurrent findings of fact that interest on receivables was not warranted.
The High Court held that the issue of interest under Section 234B had become infructuous due to the assessee being assessed at nil income. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the landlord-tenant relationship was admitted, the lease was not protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the lease termination was admitted. The court found no illegality in the trial court's judgment granting possession to the landlord.
The Tribunal upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no perversity in its findings. The High Court noted that the lower appellate authorities had concurrent findings of fact and that the ITAT had properly appreciated the evidence on record.
The Delhi High Court dismissed one appeal as covered by its previous judgment in the assessee's own case and a Supreme Court decision. The other appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The Delhi High Court dismissed one appeal as covered by its previous judgment in the assessee's own case and a Supreme Court decision. The other appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The High Court held that the appellate authorities had returned concurrent findings of fact. The ITAT, as the final fact-finding authority, had correctly upheld the deletion of additions, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court relied on previous judgments allowing tribunals to consider questions of law and assist taxpayers.
The High Court held that the appellate authorities had returned concurrent findings of fact and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court affirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.
The High Court held that the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Ltd. conclusively settled the issue of deductibility of forex fluctuations under the mercantile system. The Court also clarified that the relevant CBDT circular did not apply to the assessee's hedging transactions.
The ITAT correctly confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the transfer pricing adjustment for royalty. The rejection of comparables by the TPO was found to be based on conjectures and surmises, and the reliance on the Chrys Capital judgment was appropriate.
The High Court modified the ITAT's direction, changing 'shall' to 'may' for producing purchase parties, acknowledging the difficulty in tracing them after a long time. The AO was directed to consider all documentary evidence.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, agreeing that no additions could be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during the search, particularly when the assessment was not abated.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii) was not sustainable due to consistent past acceptance by the Revenue. For Section 14A, the court relied on Supreme Court judgments that held the provision is not attracted when exempt income arises from stock-in-trade.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the borrowed funds were used wholly and exclusively for business purposes, as they were advanced to CBUs as per agreement to facilitate manufacturing. The Tribunal also agreed that legal, professional, warehousing, and demurrage expenses were incurred for business establishment maintenance.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. regarding the importance of consistency and certainty in tax litigation.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. It noted that the ITAT had relied on established precedents and that the Revenue had not presented any facts to differentiate the current case from those precedents.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The appeals were closed with liberty to the revenue to revive them if the pending review petition favored them.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by a Supreme Court judgment against the revenue. However, a review petition was pending. The appeals were closed with liberty to revive.
The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) was not applicable as the liability was subsequently repaid and the books of account were not rejected. The High Court agreed, noting that the basis of the AO's assessment was an order later set aside by CESTAT.