Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 3 of 13
The Tribunal held that the initial onus under Section 68 lies on the assessee to explain credits in their books. Since the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence beyond asserting he was an entry provider, the addition was upheld.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the revenue. Arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved.
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.
The Tribunal held that the collaboration agreement was not a sham transaction and the revenue's contention was not established. The High Court agreed, finding no substantial question of law and noting that the amount remitted to MGF was accepted in MGF's assessment.
The Tribunal held that the collaboration agreement was not a sham transaction and the revenue's contention was not established. The High Court agreed, finding no substantial question of law and noting that the amount remitted to MGF was accepted in MGF's assessment.
The Tribunal correctly concluded that the assessee had properly computed the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) as segmental accounts were maintained project-wise. The Tribunal also correctly rejected Korus as a comparable due to deficient functional profile information.
The Tribunal held that the license fee was not royalty as no copyright was transferred, following the Supreme Court decision in Engineering Analysis Centre. It also held AMC was not FTS as the 'make available' condition under the DTAA was not met.
The Tribunal held that Explanations 6 and 7 to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act 2015, were clarificatory and operated retrospectively. The High Court agreed, finding no substantial question of law.
The High Court has admitted the appeal filed by the revenue against the Tribunal's order. The court has issued notice to the assessee and listed the matter for further hearing.
The Tribunal held that the license fee was not royalty as no copyright was transferred, following the Supreme Court decision in Engineering Analysis Centre. It also held AMC was not FTS as the 'make available' condition under the DTAA was not met.
The Tribunal held that Explanations 6 and 7 to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, inserted by the Finance Act 2015, were clarificatory and operated retrospectively. The High Court agreed, finding no substantial question of law.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to process the petitioner's request contained in Form 10-IC. The Court noted that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions stipulated in paragraph 3 of CBDT Circular No. 19/2023, which condoned the delay in filing Form 10-IC for the relevant assessment year. The CBDT was instructed to process the prescribed form within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The interim order protecting the petitioner from precipitate action regarding the demand was to continue pending this exercise and for three weeks thereafter, in case the outcome was adverse. The Court did not explicitly decide on the procedural fairness aspect raised by the petitioner but effectively granted relief based on the subsequent CBDT circular.
The High Court admitted the appeal and framed substantial questions of law regarding the taxability of amounts received from a consortium partner under the India-Germany DTAA. The court also considered whether the settlement amount was effectively connected to a Permanent Establishment.
The Tribunal's decision was upheld, finding that the interest earned on fixed deposits was inextricably linked to the setting up of the power plant and thus a capital receipt, not taxable income from other sources.
The High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of annexures. The court also issued notice to the respondent assessee and listed the matter for further hearing.
The Tribunal correctly held that the AO dealing with the current assessment year cannot make an observation restricting the carry forward of losses, as this is a matter for the AO of the subsequent year to decide. Unabsorbed depreciation and capital losses are also outside the scope of Section 79.
The Tribunal correctly held that the AO dealing with the current assessment year cannot make an observation restricting the carry forward of losses, as this is a matter for the AO of the subsequent year to decide. Unabsorbed depreciation and capital losses are also outside the scope of Section 79.
The Tribunal correctly held that the AO must clearly specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings are initiated. This clarity is necessary as the pecuniary burden can vary depending on the infraction.
The High Court granted accommodation to the Revenue and directed them to inform the court on the next date whether the appeals are covered by the decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Abhisar Buildwell. The appeals were listed for directions.
The High Court of Delhi, noting the averments made in the affidavit filed by the revenue, acknowledged that no oral hearing was granted to the petitioner before the impugned order dated March 30, 2023, was passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the best way forward was to set aside the impugned order and the consequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Liberty was granted to the AO to pass a fresh order after providing an oral hearing to the petitioner or their authorized representative. The AO was directed to grant a personal hearing and pass a speaking order, a copy of which would be furnished to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, and the interim order was vacated.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding that the notice under Section 148 was improperly served and that a notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory before passing the assessment order. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the expenses incurred for prospective clients should be allowed as a deduction, as not every expense necessarily translates into immediate income. Furthermore, treating the same transaction differently in the hands of the payer and recipient is not permissible.
The High Court held that since the issue in the present appeal (ITA 617/2023) is identical to the issue in ITA No. 616/2023, and in ITA No. 616/2023 the revenue's appeal was closed on the grounds that no substantial questions of law arose for consideration, the present appeal would also follow the same outcome. The court reasoned that if no substantial question of law was found in a prior, identical appeal, then no substantial question of law can be said to arise in this appeal either. Consequently, the appeal was closed. The operative direction was to close the appeal, meaning no substantive relief was granted or denied on the merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court of Delhi has not rendered a decision on the merits of the appeal in this excerpt. The order primarily deals with procedural matters. The Court has allowed a miscellaneous application (CM Appl.58000/2023) subject to just exceptions. Furthermore, the Court has directed that the present appeal (ITA 614/2023) be listed along with another appeal (ITA 613/2023) for hearing on January 31, 2024. No findings on any substantive issues or the ratio decidendi have been recorded in this document.
The High Court noted that the issues were covered by previous judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court, which were decided in favor of the assessee. Therefore, no substantial questions of law arose.
The High Court held that the Commissioner could not revise the assessment order by treating the respondent as an agent of Monet Ltd. when Monet Ltd. had already ceased to exist. The court found that the revisionary power under Section 263 could not be exercised against a non-existent principal, and the concept of an agent implies an existing principal.
The High Court condoned the delay of 462 days in the Revenue's appeal, considering that a similar delay in the assessee's appeal had been condoned. Notice was issued to the respondent.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings for income that was the subject matter of an appeal pending before the Tribunal, as per the third proviso to Section 147. The grounds of appeal clearly indicated that the additions under Section 68 were under challenge.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings for income that was the subject matter of an appeal pending before the Tribunal, as per the third proviso to Section 147. The grounds of appeal clearly indicated that the additions under Section 68 were under challenge.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, similar to a previous related appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on established judgments where penalty was not correctly imposed due to lack of clarity in grounds.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order because the assessee was not represented and thus had no opportunity to address the relied-upon judgment. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The Court noted that no incriminating material was found for the assessment years in question and closed the appeals as no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court noted that no incriminating material was found and that the ITAT's decision would be sustained based on precedent.
The High Court held that the first issue regarding Section 14A disallowance did not arise as the exempt income was only Rs. 78,037/- and the AO had not established a nexus between borrowed funds and investments. For the second issue, the Court found it did not arise from the statutory authorities' orders, as the core issue was crystallization of loss, not the nature of capital receipt.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. While the first issue regarding the AO's satisfaction was conceded by the assessee's counsel, the second issue regarding the absence of incriminating material was upheld.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. While the first issue regarding the AO's satisfaction was conceded by the assessee's counsel, the second issue regarding the absence of incriminating material was upheld.
The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C were invalid as no incriminating material was found during the search. While the first issue regarding the AO's satisfaction was conceded by the assessee's counsel, the second issue regarding the absence of incriminating material was upheld.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the substantive addition made in the hands of the JP Minda Group was dropped on merits. Since the assessee's addition was protective, it was also deleted.
The High Court held that the impugned assessment order and demand notice dated 06.12.2019 are untenable in law. The Court reasoned that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, and the definition of 'claim' under Section 3(6)(a) of the IBC allow operational creditors to lodge claims, even if disputed. The revenue, as an operational creditor, had the opportunity to file its claim after the public announcement by the Resolution Professional. Since the revenue failed to lodge its claim, the impugned demands stand automatically extinguished. The Court further held that the impugned penalty order and notice dated 21.11.2019 cannot have an independent existence and are inextricably linked to the assessment order and notice dated 06.12.2019. Therefore, they must also suffer the same fate. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and Others vs. Union of India and Others, and Sreemetaliks Limited vs. Additional Director General and Ors. The Court quashed the impugned notices and orders. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal's decision to disallow the claimed additional income was upheld due to insufficient and unreliable evidence. However, the compensation for loss of consortium was enhanced to be awarded to each of the five family members.
The High Court held that the condition precedent for invoking Section 158BD, which requires the AO to record satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to another person, was not met. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid.
The High Court held that the impugned notice and order dated August 28, 2018, and October 17, 2018, respectively, were unsustainable in law and could not be enforced. The Court reasoned that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), particularly Section 238, grants it an overriding effect over other laws in case of inconsistency. The 'clean slate' principle, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra, means that upon approval of a Resolution Plan, the corporate debtor is absolved of all past liabilities, and the government cannot raise further claims. The Court emphasized that the Finance Minister's speech also clarified that after the approval of a resolution plan, the government will not raise any further claims, and criminal proceedings would be against individuals, not the successful resolution applicant. Regarding the alternate remedy argument, the Court noted that while courts generally relegate parties to alternate remedies, this does not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts under Article 226, especially when the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of a statute are assailed. The Court found that pursuing an alternate remedy would serve no purpose for claims that are not permissible in law. The only caveat was that for recoveries concerning AY 2001-02, parties must abide by the final decision in SLP No. 849-850/2018.
The High Court held that the condition precedent for invoking Section 158BD, which requires the AO to record satisfaction that undisclosed income belongs to another person, was not met. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid.
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal because the substantive addition made in the hands of the JP Minda Group was dropped on merits. Since the addition in the assessee's hands was only protective, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court noted that the proposed question of law was covered by a previous judgment concerning the same assessee. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court noted that questions A to D were covered by a previous decision of the court. Question E was not raised in prior assessment years, and therefore, the court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court noted the significant delay in filing the appeal. Since the issues were covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the court did not proceed to hear the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal correctly set aside the PCIT's order because Section 40A(3) was not applicable as the cash was used for land purchase shown as closing stock. Furthermore, if the original reassessment proceedings did not lead to an addition for deposits, the PCIT could not initiate proceedings for withdrawals under Section 263.
The Tribunal held that the receipts of the respondent Verein from its members were not in the nature of fees for technical services. The Tribunal found that all three tests of mutuality were satisfied, making the receipts exempt from tax.
The Tribunal, following its previous decisions for earlier AYs and relying on the High Court's ruling in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., held that the AMP expenses did not constitute an international transaction. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the principle of consistency.