Loading High Court cases…
357 orders · Page 6 of 8
The High Court held that for claiming bad debts deduction, the amount must be accounted for in computing income and written off. The Court found that the CIT(A) had confirmed these conditions were met and the debtor had not considered the invoices as payable.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue of whether the date of receiving documents or the date of search is relevant for Section 153C assessments was already decided by a coordinate bench in CIT-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. The Court found the proposed question of law was no longer res integra.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case. The ITAT's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was upheld.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on its previous decision in the assessee's own case. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on a co-ordinate bench decision.
The Tribunal correctly applied the Resale Price Method (RPM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the arm's length price, even though the assessee had initially used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The Court held that tax authorities are not precluded from adopting the correct legal principle, even if a different method was used by the assessee in its transfer pricing report.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that gains from the transfer of CCDs are capital gains and not taxable in India. The court noted that the transaction was not a sham and was in line with government policy.
The High Court held that a consent order cannot be modified or recalled based on alleged concealment of facts, as it was not decided on merits. Therefore, the direction to refund maintenance was set aside.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of its previous judgments on similar issues for the appellant. The final outcome will be subject to the Supreme Court's decision in pending civil appeals.
The High Court held that disallowance under Section 40A(ia) is not applicable for short deduction of TDS; Section 201 should be invoked instead. It also found that the ITAT's concurrent findings on facts regarding the director's remuneration, supported by the CIT(A), were justified.
The ITAT held that additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The documents relied upon pertained to a different assessment year and the assessment for the impugned year had attained finality before the search.
The Tribunal held that the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search and that the assessment year in question was already completed before the search. Therefore, additions could not be made without incriminating material.
The High Court held that disallowance under Section 40A(ia) cannot be made for short deduction of TDS; the correct course is to invoke Section 201. Regarding the remuneration, it noted concurrent findings of fact by CIT(A) and ITAT in favour of the assessee, supported by evidence.
The ITAT held that the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search and that the assessment for the relevant year had attained finality before the search. The High Court agreed that no incriminating material was found.
The Tribunal held that no additions can be made under Section 153A/153C without incriminating material found during the search. The High Court agreed, stating the question of law was settled by previous judgments.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal that the penalty order was not specific. The court also referenced prior judgments stating that a revised return under Section 153A, by itself, does not automatically imply concealment, and the revenue must prove specific grounds for penalty.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that similar appeals concerning the same issue and assessee had been previously dismissed by the Court. The Court found no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the appeal involved interference with concurrent findings of fact by the CIT(A) and ITAT, which required re-appreciation of evidence. The Court found no perversity in the impugned order and no substantial questions of law arose.
The ITAT allowed the amount as a business loss. The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in considering the transaction as prudent and failed to appreciate the lack of prudent recovery efforts and the conflicting treatment of the amount as capital receipt by one party and revenue loss by the assessee.
The High Court held that the present case is squarely covered by its previous Division Bench judgments. The Court referred to the judgment in *Sangeeta Vig (supra)*, which in turn relied on *Savita Kapila* and *Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara*, to reiterate that a notice under Section 148 of the Act issued against a dead person is null and void. Consequently, all consequential proceedings and notices are not legally sustainable. The Court found that the revenue's reliance on the Supreme Court's order in *Ashish Agarwal* was misplaced as it did not address the specific issue of notices being issued to deceased individuals. Therefore, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court also noted that it is open to the respondents to take such steps as may be permitted in law, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any such future steps, they may resort to their legal remedies.
The High Court held that interest earned on FDRs during the construction period, if inextricably linked to setting up the asset, should reduce the cost of the asset and not be taxed as income. The court found the issue covered by previous Supreme Court and High Court decisions.
The High Court held that the payment was not for acquiring a new capital asset of enduring nature, nor did it change the capital structure. The expenditure was incurred out of commercial expediency to facilitate business operations and regain possession of its own asset.
The High Court noted that none of the submissions and contentions advanced by the parties had been considered by the Assessing Officer. The Court observed that the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. Therefore, it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to provide an opinion on this issue. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider all the submissions and contentions made by the parties, including the reply filed by the petitioner on March 29, 2022, and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with the law within twelve weeks. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but remanded it for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The High Court held that the payment was revenue expenditure as it did not result in the addition of a capital asset of enduring nature and was made out of business necessity to facilitate trading operations. The assessee was essentially getting back possession of its own asset.
The Delhi High Court held that the Revenue, having consciously decided not to challenge the Karnataka High Court's judgment in the Vodafone case, could not challenge the same issue in the present case. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that it found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 5th May, 2022. The reasoning was based on the petitioner not having claimed financial hardship, which meant the criterion of irreparable injury was not satisfied. The Court clarified that the 20% deposit made by the petitioner would abide by the final order of the Commissioner in the appeal and would be refundable if the petitioner succeeded. The Court directed the CIT(A) to dispose of the petitioner's appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months. The time to comply with the 5th May, 2022 order was extended by four weeks.
The Delhi High Court held that the Revenue could not challenge the Karnataka High Court's decision on TDS for interconnect charges, as they had consciously elected not to challenge it in a previous case. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's error was a bonafide mistake due to voluminous transactions and bookkeeping oversight, not an intention to evade tax. The High Court found the Tribunal's view reasonable and not perverse.
The Tribunal correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as TDS was deposited before the return filing due date. It also correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, as the bank held shares as stock-in-trade, making the section inapplicable.
The High Court noted that on March 10, 2017, it had admitted the appeals and framed a specific question of law regarding the justification of remand on the issue of royalty on shrink-wrapped computer software, referencing the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) passed orders in the remand proceedings. Specifically, the ITAT decided the issue of royalty in favor of MOL Corporation on February 14, 2022, and M/S Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. (MRSC) on April 13, 2022. In light of these subsequent ITAT orders which resolved the core dispute in favor of the assessees, the High Court deemed the present appeals infructuous. Therefore, no decision was made on the merits of the framed question of law by the High Court itself.
The High Court found the appeal infructuous as the ITAT and subsequent orders had already decided the issue in favor of the assessee, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The High Court found the appeal infructuous as the ITAT had subsequently passed orders deciding the royalty issue, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The Revenue's challenge to the remand order was therefore moot.
The High Court noted that on March 10, 2017, it had admitted the appeals and framed a specific question of law regarding the justification of remand on the royalty issue for shrink-wrapped software, referencing the Infrasoft Ltd. case. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer, Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and the ITAT had dealt with the matter. Crucially, the ITAT, in its remand proceedings, decided the issue of royalty in favour of MOL Corporation on February 14, 2022, and M/S Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. (MRSC) on April 13, 2022. In light of these subsequent favourable decisions by the ITAT, the High Court considered the present appeals to be infructuous.
The Delhi High Court held that payments for the use of computer software through End User License Agreements (EULAs) are not royalty for the use of copyright. Such transactions do not give rise to income taxable in India.
The High Court held that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT. The Supreme Court ruled that payments for the use of software through EULAs are not royalty for the use of copyright and are not taxable in India.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT. The Court ruled that payments for software use via EULAs are not royalty for copyright use and not taxable in India.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were based on a change of opinion, as the rent issue was already within the Assessing Officer's knowledge during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment could not be sustained.
The High Court held that the eight-hour period granted to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective. The Court found that within such a short timeframe, the petitioner could not have adequately supplied the relevant information and documents to substantiate his case. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice. The impugned assessment order dated March 31, 2022, was set aside. The petitioner was directed to file his response to the show cause notice dated March 30, 2022, on or before May 13, 2022. The Respondent No. 2 was directed to pass a fresh assessment order within six weeks thereafter, in accordance with the law. The rights and contentions of all parties were left open.
The High Court held that the controversy revolved around the petitioner's request for an extension of time. The petitioner had sought fifteen days' additional time to respond. The Court interpreted this to mean fifteen days from March 17, 2022. Consequently, the impugned order dated March 30, 2022, and the consequential notice dated March 30, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act, were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider and decide the petitioner's objections dated March 29, 2022, in accordance with law within eight weeks. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the controversy, and the rights and contentions of all parties were left open.
The High Court held that the respondents were duly bound to decide the petitioner's objections before proceeding further in the matter, citing the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and Ors. The Court found that the Supreme Court had clarified that on receipt of reasons for issuing a Section 148 notice, the assessee is entitled to file objections, and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of these objections by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. Consequently, the impugned assessment order, demand notice, and penalty notice dated March 31, 2022, for Assessment Year 2017-18 were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide the objections dated March 17, 2022, in accordance with law within eight weeks.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that despite the Revenue's challenge to a relevant precedent, no stay was granted. Therefore, the appeal was covered by the existing judgment.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the facts were similar to previous assessment years where the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized the principle of consistency and certainty in tax litigation.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the facts were similar to previous assessment years where the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee. The court emphasized the importance of consistency and certainty in tax matters.
The High Court held that the bonus payments were not for services rendered and were made to avoid dividend tax, thus disallowing them as a deduction. The court found no substantial question of law, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.
The High Court held that whether an agent rendered service is a question of fact. The concurrent finding of fact by the lower authorities that the appellant failed to prove service rendered by the agent was not perverse.
The High Court held that the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic apply to proceedings under the PMLA. Consequently, the 180-day period for confirmation of provisional attachments was extended.
The Tribunal considered all issues in depth, and its findings were based on factual appreciation. The High Court found no substantial question of law or perversity in the Tribunal's order.
The Tribunal considered all issues in depth and found that its findings were based on factual appreciation. The High Court agreed that the issues raised by the department did not involve substantial questions of law and found no perversity in the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal considered all issues in depth, and its findings were based on factual appreciation. The High Court found no substantial question of law or perversity in the Tribunal's order.
The High Court held that the issue of bonus payment is a question of fact and that consistency in approach must be maintained. Since similar disallowances in previous years were deleted and accepted by the Revenue, the current appeal was dismissed.
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding him to be an unauthorized occupant. The defendant was declared the owner, and the plaintiff was directed to hand over possession and pay mesne profits.