Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 1 of 13
The High Court held that the assessee did have a Permanent Establishment in India, as the hotel premises were at its disposal for carrying on business. However, it disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the payments were taxable as royalty.
The High Court held that the assessee did have a Permanent Establishment in India, as the hotel premises were at its disposal for carrying on business. However, it disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the payments were taxable as royalty.
The High Court held that the assessee did have a Permanent Establishment in India, as the hotel premises were at its disposal for carrying on business. However, it disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the payments were taxable as royalty.
The High Court held that the assessee did have a Permanent Establishment in India, as the hotel premises were at its disposal for carrying on business. However, it disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the payments were taxable as royalty.
The High Court held that the assessee did have a Permanent Establishment in India, as the hotel premises were at its disposal for carrying on business. However, it disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the payments were taxable as royalty.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and survey conducted on the assessee and related companies, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable. The High Court sustained the Tribunal's order.
The Delhi High Court granted leave to the revenue to place on record documents mentioned in the DRP's order, which were crucial for deciding whether the PE was involved in the offshore supplies. The appeal was listed for further hearing.
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, following the High Court's earlier decision that set aside the AAR ruling. The High Court noted that similar appeals for AY 2011-12 were dismissed and that parties would abide by a Supreme Court decision.
The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee, following the High Court's earlier decision that set aside the AAR's ruling. The High Court noted that similar appeals for AY 2011-12 were dismissed. The current appeals were closed, with parties agreeing to abide by the Supreme Court's decision in a related civil appeal.
The High Court, with the consent of parties, remitted the matters back to the Tribunal to decide the second issue regarding Arm's Length pricing. The court did not disturb the Tribunal's prior orders.
The High Court noted that the respondent companies were undergoing insolvency proceedings and that related matters were being addressed by the Supreme Court. Given the lack of definitive information after a considerable period, the Court decided to close the appeals.
The High Court noted that the respondent companies were undergoing insolvency proceedings and that related matters were being addressed by the Supreme Court. Given the lack of definitive information after a considerable period, the Court decided to close the appeals.
The High Court noted that the respondent companies were undergoing insolvency proceedings and that related matters were being addressed by the Supreme Court. Given the lack of definitive information after a considerable period, the Court decided to close the appeals.
The High Court, with the consent of parties, remitted the matters back to the Tribunal to decide the second issue regarding Arm's Length pricing. The court did not disturb the Tribunal's prior orders.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the revenue to approach the appropriate court. The court also directed that any fresh proceedings should be initiated promptly.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the revenue to approach the appropriate court as per law.
The High Court decided to issue notice to the respondents concerning a specific proposed question of law. This question pertains to whether the assessment order was void ab initio due to the absence of a Document Identification Number.
The High Court noted that the assessee claimed tax residency in Singapore and possessed a Tax Residency Certificate. It also highlighted the assessee's contention that treaty abuse was not raised during CIT proceedings. The court requested further documentation from the revenue.
The Delhi High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable before it. The court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to approach the appropriate court.
The Delhi High Court is considering two questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision to uphold the deletion of adjustments for royalty and expenses on discarded software. The court has listed the matter for further hearing.
The High Court noted that one of the proposed questions of law was covered by a previous judgment. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration regarding that specific issue.
The High Court has adjourned the hearing of the appeal to a future date. The court has also allowed an application for interim relief, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of annexures.
The High Court admitted the instant appeal, noting that the same questions of law arise as in the previously admitted appeal. The operation of the impugned order was stayed pending further proceedings.
The Delhi High Court has framed questions of law to consider whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the deletion of adjustments for royalty and disallowance of bank guarantee commission and cash management service charges.
The High Court noted that the CBDT instruction, allowing 1% taxation on offshore supplies, prima facie appeared applicable to the assessee. The revenue sought time to ascertain if this instruction had been modified or superseded.
The High Court held that the loan agreement raised doubts about the reality of the transaction and the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus of proving genuineness and creditworthiness. The argument for Section 41(1) was also rejected.
The High Court remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh examination. The CIT(A) is to reconsider the method for determining ALP, the comparables for benchmarking, and whether the appellant recovered a price higher than what the AE received from the third party.
The High Court issued notice to the respondent and listed the matter for further hearing. The core issue is whether reimbursements for employee-related expenses qualify as fees for technical services.
The High Court has not yet decided the merits of the appeal. It has directed the revenue to produce the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) and has issued notice to the assessee regarding the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal was covered by a previous dismissal order of a coordinate bench. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. The court also directed the parties to supply a common convenience file of documents.
The High Court has issued notice to the respondent assessee regarding the Revenue's application for condonation of delay. The central issue to be examined is the taxability of interest received under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in light of specific sections of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court agreed with the Revenue's counsel to close the appeal. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to approach the court again if they fail in the proceedings against the company under the Black Money Act.
The High Court agreed with the revenue's counsel to close the appeal with liberty to refile if the proceedings against the company under the Black Money Act fail. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) and sustained by the ITAT was not substantively adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the issue was debatable and the position in law was not settled, thus the penalty was not exigible. The High Court agreed, noting that the assessee had succeeded in the quantum appeals on the same issue.
The High Court agreed with the revenue's counsel to close the appeal with liberty to refile if the proceedings against the company under the Black Money Act fail. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) and sustained by the ITAT was not substantively adjudicated.
The High Court noted that the AO did not allude to any specific provision for making the addition and that the assessee had provided a valuation report. The court sought further information from the revenue regarding additions to sellers and GPMA.
The Tribunal held that the issue was debatable and relied on pending quantum appeals. The High Court agreed that since the assessee succeeded in the quantum appeals, the penalty could not be sustained.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP on merits and delay. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not applicable as the assessee, being a non-resident with no obligation to maintain books of account in India, did not satisfy a condition of the section. The Tribunal also found the assessee's explanation for the credit entries to be satisfactory based on documentary evidence.
The High Court held that the revenue failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. The court noted the lack of a formal application for condonation and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The court also noted that one of the proposed questions of law appeared to be covered by previous judgments.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The court also issued notice to the assessee and listed the appeals for further hearing, indicating that the substantive issues are yet to be decided.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. It noted that the proposed question of law regarding 'royalty' appears covered by previous judgments. The court will examine the issue of PE existence and attribution of income on the next date of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed made sufficient enquiries regarding the share allotment and premium, including seeking details and explanations from the assessee. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was deemed unsustainable.
The High Court held that the power to extend time for submission of an audit report under Section 142(2C) is vested solely with the Assessing Officer (AO) and cannot be exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). This power is not administrative and cannot be delegated.
The High Court condoned the delays in filing and re-filing the appeals, subject to just exceptions. The court also noted that one of the proposed questions of law appeared to be covered by previous judgments.
The High Court acknowledged the revenue's applications for condonation of delay and issued notice to the assessee. The court noted that one of the proposed questions of law appears to be covered by previous judgments.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. It also issued notice to the assessee and listed the matters for further hearing, indicating that certain legal questions would be examined.
The High Court noted that the issue of royalty receipts might be covered by previous judgments. Regarding the PE issue, the court acknowledged the ITAT's finding that no income attribution was sustainable if transfer pricing adjustments did not survive.