Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 2 of 13
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 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 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 held that the fees received by the appellant for domain name registration services do not amount to royalty. The appellant acts as an intermediary and does not transfer any proprietary rights in the domain name to its customers.
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 Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. However, it closed the appeal as no substantial question of law arose for consideration, citing prior 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 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 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 Delhi High Court has issued notice on the appeal concerning depreciation on trademarks and the addition of notional interest on interest-free loans. The court has not yet made a final decision on these issues.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not in accordance with law because the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient enquiries and applied their mind during the initial assessment. The High Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court noted that the CIT(A) found the difference arose from misreading information and sustained this view. However, the court also observed that the assessee did not produce books of accounts. The court issued notice to the assessee and directed the revenue to provide the record available to the AO and CIT(A).
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, additions cannot be made under Section 153A based on post-search material, especially for completed assessments. The case of Dr. A.V. Sreekumar was distinguished as it involved pre-search TEP material.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in a related case involving a group entity of the assessee had already settled the issue against the Revenue. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, since the merits of the case were already decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee, the present appeals were rendered academic and closed.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, since the merits of the case were already decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee, the present appeals were rendered academic and closed.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal. The court also issued notice to the respondent assessee and listed the matter for further hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. However, it was held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, similar to previous identical appeals.
The High Court has not decided the appeal on its merits. The Court has acknowledged the delay of 460 days in re-filing the appeal by the appellant/revenue and has issued notice to the respondent for the application seeking condonation of delay. The Court has listed both the application for condonation of delay and the main appeal for hearing on 04.03.2024. Therefore, no finding has been reached on the substantive issues of the appeal, nor has any reasoning or ratio decidendi been established at this stage. The operative direction is to list the matter for further proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that the assessee was not precluded from filing a revised Form 10 during reassessment proceedings. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, since the merits of the case were already decided by the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee, the present appeals were rendered academic and closed.
The High Court held that the 'enduring benefit' test is not conclusive for determining the nature of expenditure. It upheld the ITAT's decision that software license and training expenses, in this case, were revenue in nature as they did not alter the profit structure or add to the fixed capital.
The High Court held that the 'enduring benefit' test is not conclusive for determining the nature of expenditure. It upheld the ITAT's decision that software license and training expenses, in this case, were revenue in nature as they did not alter the profit structure or add to the fixed capital.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. However, it was held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, similar to previous appeals.
The High Court noted that one of the proposed questions of law regarding software sales being taxable as royalty was covered by a Supreme Court decision against the Revenue. Therefore, notice was issued only on the question of business connection/PE.
The High Court held that the CIT(A) has co-equal powers with the AO and can conduct further inquiries. The factual findings of the CIT(A) regarding the source of funds, affirmed by the Tribunal, were not to be interfered with.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. However, it was held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration, similar to previous appeals.
The High Court noted that the issues in the present appeal were identical to those in a prior appeal which had been decided. Therefore, the present appeal was expected to suffer the same fate.
The High Court noted that the issues in the present appeal were identical to those in a prior appeal which had been decided. Therefore, the present appeal was expected to suffer the same fate.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and issued notice to the respondent. The court also directed the appellant to place the AO's reasons to believe on record.
The Tribunal held that the loss incurred due to the destruction of stock-in-trade by fire was a revenue loss and thus deductible. The High Court found that the assessee had provided evidence of the fire incident and correspondence with the insurance company, and that the AO had not doubted the occurrence of the fire itself.
The court was informed about the correct address of the respondent. The appellant's counsel agreed to amend the memo of parties to reflect the correct address.
The High Court found that the previous judgment concerning the assessee for AY 2008-09 covered the present appeal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court acknowledged that the applicability of Section 153C, particularly concerning the relevant Assessment Years and the impact of the 2017 amendment, requires further consideration, especially when the AO is common to both parties.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal, noting the explanation provided by the Revenue. The court issued notice on one of the proposed questions concerning the existence of a business connection or PE in India.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration and therefore did not interfere with the ITAT's order. The appeal was closed on this basis.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal, as all issues are covered by existing judicial pronouncements. Regarding Section 14A, it referred to the case of PCIT vs Inductis India (P) Ltd. (2023) 146 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi), which held that for a debt-free company, the question of receiving interest on receivables does not arise, thus deleting the adjustment. The court also cited the case of Bechtel India (P) Ltd. vs DCIT (2016) 66 taxmann.com 6, upheld by the Delhi High Court, which stated that it is not justifiable to presume borrowed funds were used for AEs if the company is debt-free. For issues concerning receivables as international transactions (Questions 2.3 and 2.4), the court relied on PCIT vs Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 431, where it was held that inclusion of 'receivables' in the Explanation to Section 92B does not automatically characterize every receivable as an international transaction without context and proper inquiry into the impact on working capital. For the exclusion of comparables (Questions 2.5 and 2.6), the court referred to its own decision in PCIT vs Inductis India (P) Ltd., ITA 144/2019, which held that the exclusion of comparables based on functional dissimilarity and lack of segmental data is a factual matter, not a question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court condoned the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay in re-filing was allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of annexures.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The Revenue, however, stated that one of the proposed questions of law was not pressed given the facts of the case.
The High Court noted that one of the proposed questions of law regarding software sale receipts was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Notice was confined to the other question concerning business connection and PE.
The High Court condoned the delay of 12 days in re-filing the appeal. The court also directed the appellant to furnish a bookmarked copy of the appeal to the respondent within two days.
The High Court noted that one of the proposed questions of law was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, notice was confined to the other question concerning the existence of a business connection and PE in India.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, especially given the finding of fact regarding the non-receipt of distribution fees. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.