Loading High Court cases…
357 orders · Page 5 of 8
The High Court held that the ITAT had correctly deleted the addition as the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of funds. The court noted that the AO had not raised adverse inferences in remand reports regarding the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
The tribunal held that the ex gratia amount, which was later withdrawn by the government, should be added back to the compensation. The loss of consortium was also enhanced for all six dependents.
The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the notice being time-barred was incorrect. The Court reasoned that the reassessment proceedings were initiated within the time limit extended by TOLA. Specifically, the time limit for issuing a notice under the unamended Section 149, which fell between 20th March, 2020, and 31st March, 2021, was extended by Section 3 of TOLA read with relevant notifications until 30th June, 2021. The initial notice in this case was issued on 23rd June, 2021, within this extended period. The Court noted that a previous notice issued on 23rd June, 2021, was quashed for non-compliance with Section 148A, but the Supreme Court, in appeal, deemed such notices issued between 1st April 2021 and 30th June 2021, as having been issued under Section 148A, thereby reviving the notice dated 23rd June, 2021. Since the time period for issuing a reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 was extended until 30th June, 2021, and the alleged escaped income exceeded ₹50 lakhs, the First Proviso to Section 149 (as amended) was not attracted. Therefore, the impugned notice was within the limitation period, even without relying on CBDT Instruction No.01/2022. The Court dismissed the writ petition but clarified that the Assessing Officer should decide the matter on its merits, without being influenced by any observation in the order, except on the issue of limitation.
The Delhi High Court held that the Bright Line Test has no statutory mandate and its application to determine the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenditure does not arise. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating it was covered by previous judgments.
The High Court held that Section 14A is applicable only when exempt income is actually received or receivable. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, was held not to be retrospective. The concurrent findings on prior period expenses were also upheld.
The High Court held that Section 14A applies only when there is actual receipt of exempt income. It also noted that the amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is not retrospective. Furthermore, the Court found concurrent findings of fact on prior period expenses, with no appeal filed by the revenue against a similar prior year's decision.
The High Court held that the 'bright line test' has no statutory mandate and is not a mandatory methodology. The court reiterated its previous decisions that the question of applying the bright line test to determine the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenditure does not arise.
The Delhi High Court held that the Bright Line Test has no statutory mandate and cannot be applied to determine the existence of an international transaction involving AMP expenditure. The appeal was dismissed as it was covered by previous judgments of the High Court.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) was not precluded from issuing the notice dated June 23, 2022. The Court reasoned that the AO had provided the information contained in the June 23, 2022 notice upon the petitioner's request for further material in her reply dated May 24, 2022. The Court found this action permissible to give effect to the objective of Section 148A, which requires the AO to provide specific material at the Section 148A(b) stage for a meaningful response. The Court cited its own decision in Divya Capital One Private Limited v. ACIT & Ors. to emphasize the importance of sharing information. The Court noted that the petitioner had not offered any explanation for the transaction with M/s Subhshree Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. in her reply dated June 28, 2022, despite the AO's specific query. The Court also stated that the petitioner's claim of the transaction being a loan that was repaid was a bare averment, unsubstantiated, and could not be determined in writ proceedings. Therefore, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all rights and contentions of the petitioner were left open.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition and pending applications by modifying the earlier order dated April 21, 2022, to balance the equities, without going into the merits of the allegations and contentions raised by the parties. The Petitioner was directed to prepare an additional Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of Rs. 100 crores in a specified bank account, in addition to the existing FDR of Rs. 100 crores. This new FDR was to be renewed automatically, and a photocopy was to be filed with the Assessing Officer (AO) within a week. The bank was directed to ensure the Petitioner could not deal with the FDR, and a lien was placed in favour of the Department on both FDRs until the conclusion of assessment proceedings. The Respondents were directed not to release any refund to the Petitioner until assessment completion. The Respondents were also directed to complete the assessment expeditiously. The Petitioner was prohibited from repatriating any royalty or dividend abroad but could approach the Court if the need arose. The Petitioner was to continue filing monthly statements of payments received and made with the AO. The order specified that it was passed based on the Petitioner's offer and would not be considered a precedent. The attachment orders dated February 17, 2022, and February 19, 2022, were to be withdrawn upon the deposit of the additional Rs. 100 crores.
The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act if it is not based on seized material found during search operations. Completed assessments cannot be interfered with arbitrarily without incriminating material.
The High Court held that the Trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents as they were able to establish a reasonable cause for the delayed payment of TDS under Section 278AA of the IT Act. The court found that the financial constraints were beyond their control and not due to wilful default or lack of bonafides.
The High Court held that the liability to pay bonus had accrued year-to-year and was payable, even if its actual disbursement was deferred or subject to options. The possibility of future reduction or extinction of the liability does not make it contingent.
The ITAT correctly held that the Assessing Officer needed to demonstrate that interest-bearing funds were used for investments. The High Court found no substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the issues involved were purely factual and that the ITAT's order was clear, cogent, and without perversity. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The difference between the market price and the offer price of stock options granted to employees is an allowable revenue expenditure. This expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and is not a capital expenditure.
The ITAT correctly held that the notice of reopening was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The reopening was based on existing material, and the conditions for reopening after four years were not met.
The High Court held that the diminution in value of bonds held as current investments or stock-in-trade constitutes a revenue loss. This loss is allowable as it is not a notional loss but a loss on assets valued at market rate or cost, whichever is less.
The High Court held that the Adjudicating Authority who heard the matter could not pass the judgment after ceasing to hold the post. The court found no violation of any right or notification that mandates such a procedure.
The High Court held that once a new Adjudicating Authority was appointed, the previous officer holding additional charge could not pass judgment. The court found no violation of any right or notification that would allow this.
The High Court adjourned the hearing of the appeals at the request of the respondent's counsel. The respondent was directed to file a short note of submissions within four weeks.
The High Court held that the genuineness of companies in a previous assessment year cannot be a basis for determining the genuineness of different companies in the current assessment year. The ITAT had failed to examine the capacity and creditworthiness of all relevant companies for the impugned assessment year.
The Delhi High Court adjourned the hearing of the appeals to a later date. The respondent was directed to file a short note of submissions within four weeks.
The Court adjourned the hearing of the appeals to a later date. The respondent was given time to file their submissions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A(1)(b) on the refund of amounts paid towards interest under Sections 234D and 220(2). The High Court agreed that the refunded amount does not retain the character of 'interest' and upheld the ITAT's decision.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeals as infructuous. This was because the ITAT had subsequently recalled its order concerning the grounds under appeal, following an application filed by the assessee.
The High Court disposed of the appeals as infructuous because the ITAT had recalled its earlier order on the grounds that were the subject of the appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to file fresh appeals if desired.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the appeals as infructuous because the ITAT had recalled its order on the grounds that were the subject of the appeals. The appellant was granted liberty to file fresh appeals if desired.
The High Court held that the remedy for condoning the delay in filing the return of income lies with the CBDT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, not with the ITAT.
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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court relied on its previous decision in PCIT vs. M/s Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. [ITA 620/2019]. The High Court held that the levy of penalty cannot be a matter of course and can only be levied if concealment of income is proven. If the quantum order itself is challenged and substantial questions of law are framed in the assessee's appeal, it indicates that the alleged concealment is not final and the issue is disputable. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO cannot survive. The Court also referred to its decisions in CIT vs. Liquid Investment Ltd. and CIT vs. Thomson Press India Ltd., where penalties were deleted on the ground that the issues were debatable, as evidenced by the admission of appeals by the High Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to exclude Excel Infoways Ltd. as a comparable was justified. The court emphasized the need for similarity in comparable companies and that wide deviations in profitability ratios should trigger further analysis.
The High Court held that for reliable determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP), comparables must be selected based on similarity in all material aspects. Excel Infoways Ltd. failed the service revenue from export/ITES filter and the diminishing revenue filter, thus no interference was called for.
The Delhi High Court held that the condition of depositing Rs. 5 crores imposed by the ITAT was set aside. The Court noted that the fact that the additions were decided in favor of the petitioner by the Tribunal for the last seven assessment years was not disputed. The Court referred to CBDT Instruction No. 1914 dated February 2, 1993, which provides that a complete stay can be granted if the demand relates to issues decided in the assessee's favor by an appellate authority or court. The Court also highlighted its own previous decisions holding that recovery of demand against issues decided in favor of the assessee is unwarranted. Consequently, the matter was directed to be heard by the Tribunal expeditiously, keeping in view the CBDT guidelines and the Supreme Court's judgment in Dunlop India Ltd. The Court found the impugned order to be in the teeth of its own previous decisions.
The High Court noted that a similar issue regarding lease premium paid to Noida Authority was decided as capital expenditure by a coordinate bench. The present appeal was disposed of in terms of that judgment, subject to the outcome of a pending Supreme Court appeal.
The judgment records the filing of the appeal by the PCIT, Delhi-7, against the ITAT's order dated May 11, 2021, for AY 2009-10. The High Court has issued notice to the respondent, Omkam Developers Ltd., for December 19, 2022. The specific findings of the ITAT or the arguments presented by either side in detail are not elaborated in this order. The High Court has not yet decided the appeal on its merits. The operative direction is to issue notice and list the matter for further hearing. No issue has been expressly left undecided, as the appeal is at an initial stage.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to exclude Excel Infoways Ltd. as a comparable was justified. The court emphasized the need for similarity in comparable companies and that wide deviations in profitability ratios should trigger further analysis.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material found during the search from the assessee's premises. The AO relied solely on the disclosures made by the Managing Director, which lacked corroborative evidence specific to the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material found during the search against the assessee. The AO had relied solely on the disclosure made by the Managing Director, which lacked corroborative evidence specific to the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The AO relied solely on the statement of the Managing Director, which lacked corroborative evidence related to the specific shares sold by the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that completed assessments can only be interfered with under Section 153A if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search.
The Tribunal held that Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act cannot override the beneficial provisions of a DTAA. Therefore, the tax deduction should be at the rate prescribed in the DTAA, not the higher rate under Section 206AA.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material found during the search from the assessee's premises. The AO relied solely on the statement of the Managing Director, which, in the absence of corroborative evidence, does not constitute incriminating material for completed assessments.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on any incriminating material found during the search from the assessee's premises. The AO relied solely on the statement of the Managing Director, which lacked corroborative evidence specific to the assessee's case.
The Delhi High Court held that the ITAT's deletion of disallowances for 'consumption debtors' and late deposit of employee PF contributions was correct. The court found no substantial question of law and upheld the ITAT's decision.
The High Court held that the consumption incentive was an ascertained liability allowable as an expense. It also affirmed that the due date for employee PF contributions under Section 36(1)(va) is governed by Section 43B, and the amendment clarifying this was not retrospective for the assessment year in question.
The Tribunal correctly found that the assessee had raised a timely objection to jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer and PCIT in Kolkata failed to follow the proper procedure for determining jurisdiction under the Act, leading to an improper assessment.
The High Court agreed with the ITAT that the Assessing Officer and PCIT erred in their approach to jurisdiction. The objection to jurisdiction was raised within the time limit, and the matter should have been decided before assessment, not after.
The ITAT correctly allowed the assessee to raise an additional ground regarding the subsidy, treating it as a capital receipt. The disallowance under Section 14A was also correctly set aside as no exempt income was earned.