Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 10 of 13
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, finding reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty of the charged offence. The court considered that the investigation was complete, the chargesheet filed, and no specific flight risk or threat to witnesses was established by the SFIO.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the same court and the Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition on similar grounds. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration. The court noted a similar issue for AY 2009-2010 was dismissed by a coordinate bench.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the Delhi and Madras High Courts, whose SLPs were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. However, it noted that the tax effect for the relevant assessment year was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per CBDT circulars.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not invoke Section 263 powers merely because they disagreed with the AO's view, especially when the AO had considered the assessee's response. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not justified as the Assessing Officer had made proper inquiries and arrived at a plausible view. The PCIT could not direct a re-enquiry simply because they held a different view.
The Delhi High Court, in its oral order, allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, both dated 31.03.2023. The Court directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to carry out a de novo exercise. The AO was instructed to update his records with the correct email ID of the petitioner (anilsahay@msboiles.in) and to furnish any information or documents in his possession that had not yet been provided to the petitioner. Crucially, the AO was directed to accord a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner, with notice to be issued indicating the date and time of the hearing. The AO was also mandated to pass a speaking order. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contentions regarding the breach of natural justice due to insufficient time to respond and the incorrect email address used for communication. The revenue's counsel agreed to a fresh examination by the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Delhi High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Liberty was granted to the appellant to approach the appropriate High Court as per law.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to just exceptions. The core issue for examination is whether the approving authority applied its mind to the requisite aspects while granting approval under Section 153D.
The High Court held that the ITAT correctly applied the CBDT circular in force at the time of the original dismissal. They found no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant recalling the order, as the subsequent circular with exceptions was not in effect then.
The High Court admitted the appeals for consideration on specific questions of law (B and E). For question (D), it was noted that the issue was already covered by a previous judgment of the court.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It admitted questions of law (B) and (E) for consideration, while noting that question (D) was covered by a previous judgment. Questions (A) and (C) were considered to be covered by question (B).
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was untenable because the CIT had already declared the original assessment order null and void. The revenue argued that proceedings under Section 143 could still be initiated.
The Delhi High Court has admitted the appeal filed by the Revenue and issued notice to the assessee. The court has condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Revenue.
The High Court noted that the issue was identical to a previous case for AY 2015-16, which was decided based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre. The appeal was closed as no substantial question of law arose.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.
The High Court has framed a question of law regarding the ITAT's decision to reverse the CIT(A)'s addition. This addition was based on peak credit in individual accounts versus the entire year.
The High Court acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and issued notice to the assessee. The appeal itself was not decided on merits in this order.
The Tribunal found that O&M costs are post-construction activities and should be treated separately from construction revenue recognition. The High Court agreed with this rationale, finding no substantial question of law.
The Tribunal found that O&M costs are post-construction activities and should be treated separately from construction revenue recognition. The High Court agreed with this rationale, finding no substantial question of law.
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in the appeal, acknowledging that a similar issue arises in another appeal concerning different Assessment Years. The court has listed the matter for further hearing.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arose as the ITAT had confirmed the CIT(A)'s findings of fact. The court agreed that the AO's approach of allowing only 50% of the secondment cost was not rational and that consistency in treatment of such costs in earlier years should be followed.
The High Court held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempted dividend income. This was based on a previous judgment of the same court.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the issue was decided in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal had found that the assessee was not engaged in trade and its dominant objective was charitable.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as the issue was decided in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal had found that the assessee was not engaged in trade and its dominant objective was charitable.
The High Court held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempted dividend income. This was based on a previous judgment of the same court.
The ITAT set aside the penalty because the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty was levied. The High Court noted that this issue might be covered by a previous judgment.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The substantive issue regarding the existence of an international transaction and the Tribunal's conclusion remains to be argued.
The Delhi High Court has not yet decided the substantive issues of the appeal. The order primarily deals with the condonation of delay and lists the appeal for further hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court also issued notice to the respondent and listed the appeals for further hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court.
The Tribunal and CIT(A) correctly held that the AO erred in treating the conversion as a sale and calculating business income. No sale had occurred, and any future income would be capital gains.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. Notice was issued to the respondent, and the appeals were listed for further hearing.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 220(2) is payable only on the amount specified in a demand notice issued under Section 156, and only if it is not paid within the prescribed time. Therefore, interest cannot be levied for the period before the demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal held that interest under Section 220(2) is payable only on the amount specified in a demand notice issued under Section 156, and only if it is not paid within the prescribed time. Therefore, interest cannot be levied for the period before the demand notice was issued.
The Tribunal held that the centralized services fee earned by the respondent/assessee is not taxable, following a previous judgment of a coordinate bench in a similar case. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising.
The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issue was covered by a prior judgment. The appeals were consequently closed, with a provision to abide by any Supreme Court decision if the revenue succeeded in a related matter.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the arrangement had been in place for a long time and the CIT(A) and Tribunal had returned concurring findings of fact. The principle of consistency was also considered.
The Tribunal rightly held that the surplus arising from the transfer of a capital asset to a subsidiary, where the conditions of Section 47(iv) are met, is not exigible to capital gains tax. The High Court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the arrangement had been in place for a long time and the CIT(A) and Tribunal had returned concurring findings of fact. The principle of consistency was also considered.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the Revenue's appeals. The appeals were then listed for a future hearing on the same date as other related appeals.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals by the Revenue. The appeals were listed for a future date to be heard along with other related appeals.
The Tribunal rightly held that the surplus arising from the transfer of a capital asset to a subsidiary, where the conditions of Section 47(iv) are met, is not exigible to capital gains tax. The High Court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the Revenue's appeals. The appeals were listed for a future date to be heard along with other related appeals.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the Revenue's appeals. The appeals were listed for further hearing on a future date, aligning with other related appeals.
The High Court noted that while the petitioner made a declaration under Section 59 of the 2015 Act after becoming aware that authorities had some clue about his undisclosed assets, certain issues require further examination. The first issue identified is determining the precise date when the respondents/revenue acquired tangible information regarding the petitioner's undisclosed assets. This date is crucial as it triggers the CBDT guidelines of 23.01.2018, which mandate issuing a notice under Section 10(1) within thirty (30) days of the end of the Financial Year in which such knowledge was acquired. The second issue to be considered is whether the provisions of the 2015 Act apply to undisclosed assets acquired prior to 01.07.2015. The Court found that the matter requires further examination and issued notice. In the interim, no coercive measures are to be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The court noted that the issues were likely covered by a Supreme Court judgment and an earlier ITAT decision for a different AY, for which an appeal was pending.
The High Court noted that the issues raised in these appeals were similar to an appeal for AY 2011-12, which was pending. The court also prima facie found that one of the issues was covered by a Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court noted that the issues raised in the appeals were likely covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The court decided to list the appeals for further hearing.