Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 4 of 13
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The court also directed the appellant to furnish the case file to the respondent.
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay. Arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The court also directed the appellant to furnish the case file to the respondent via email.
The Tribunal correctly excluded the three comparables based on findings of fact regarding functional dissimilarity and risk-bearing capacity. The court also held that no further adjustment on account of interest on receivables is required if a working capital adjustment has already been made.
The court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The court also directed the appellant to furnish the case file to the respondent via email.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The court also directed the appellant to furnish the case file to the respondent via email.
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 Delhi High Court noted that one issue (TDS on credit card commission) was covered by a previous judgment in favour of the assessee. Another set of issues (education cess) was covered in favour of the revenue due to a retrospective amendment.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present evidence justifying the payments. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that the proposed questions of law did not arise as substantial questions of law, as they were covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches. The court relied on the principle of consistency in its decision.
The Tribunal correctly held that RPM was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking the international transactions. This was because the assessee was a distributor reselling goods without value addition, and the TPO/DRP failed to provide comparable instances to justify TNMM.
The Tribunal correctly held that RPM was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking the international transactions. This was because the assessee was a distributor reselling goods without value addition, and the TPO/DRP failed to provide comparable instances to justify TNMM.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. Leave was granted to the revenue to file the record that was made available before the statutory authority.
The High Court issued notice on the Revenue's application for condonation of delay. The court acknowledged the contentious issue regarding the disallowance of expenditure incurred on exempt income under Section 115JB, referencing previous judgments.
The High Court noted that subsequent proceedings had resolved the issues raised by the assessee, rendering the proposed questions of law infructuous. The assessee also indicated they were not pursuing the appeal further due to the small amount involved.
The Delhi High Court accepted the concession made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was closed based on the admitted position.
The High Court did not decide any substantive issues on the merits of the appeal. The Court allowed a miscellaneous application (CM No. 52431/2023) subject to the condition that the appellant files legible copies of the annexures at least three days before the next hearing. The main appeal (ITA 573/2023) along with other applications were adjourned to October 20, 2023, at the appellant's request. Additionally, the appellant was directed to file on record the assessment order passed, if any, concerning her husband. No findings or reasoning on the core tax dispute were provided in this order.
The High Court held that the renovation and repair expenses of Rs. 2,41,99,144/- and consultancy fees of Rs. 2,85,170/- were revenue in nature and admissible. However, expenses initially capitalized and claimed as revenue for the first time were remanded for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that renovation and repair expenses, partly capitalized, were not revenue expenditure and that payments to the interior architect for consultancy were capital expenditure. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's findings.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in relying heavily on the auditor's observations and annual accounts. It reiterated that expenditure to run the business efficiently, even if resulting in a superior item, can be revenue expenditure if it doesn't fundamentally alter the asset.
The High Court held that the renovation and repair expenses incurred on account of improvisation and better conduct of the existing business are revenue expenditure. The appeal is disposed of with the direction that the disallowed amount is deductible.
The High Court held that the renovation and repair expenses of Rs. 3,48,92,811/- and the fees paid to the architect of Rs. 44,00,000/- were revenue expenditures. However, expenses amounting to Rs. 982,01,000/-, initially capitalized and claimed as revenue for the first time before the Tribunal, were remanded for fresh examination.
The High Court found no substantial question of law regarding the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, as the ITAT had directed the AO to retain only the disallowance offered by the assessee. For other issues, notice was issued.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection concerning the extension of the audit timeframe. The High Court noted that the issues in this appeal were similar to another pending appeal and adjourned the hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the penalty order, finding that the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, stating that no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that additions made by the Assessing Officer were beyond the scope of Section 153C as no incriminating material was found during the search. This finding was supported by a coordinate bench judgment of the High Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court issued notice in the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing. Parties were directed to file written submissions before the next date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and that the relevant Rule 6DD had been substituted in 2008, rendering the reliance on the old rule and circular invalid for the assessment year in question.
The High Court held that the NCTE's decision to return the applications was legal and valid, as it was taken in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12(c) of the NCTE Act. The court also relied on the doctrine of implied powers.
The High Court agreed with the ITAT's conclusion that the services did not meet the 'make available' test required for FTS under the DTAA. The court found that the recipient of the services was not enabled to provide similar services independently.
The High Court, with the consent of both parties, set aside the ITAT order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the supporting material for miscellaneous expenses claimed by the assessee.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The core issue is whether the assessee should have been subjected to proceedings under Section 153C instead of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The appeals concern whether the assessee should have been subjected to proceedings under Section 153C instead of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
The Delhi High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were flawed. Firstly, while Mr. Ankit Jain admitted to out-of-book cash transactions amounting to Rs. 16,29,423/-, his statement, relied upon by the revenue, did not refer to the petitioners/assessees. The revenue could not draw attention to any part of the statement that linked the petitioners to these transactions. Secondly, the court agreed with the assessees that documents evidencing approval, if any, for commencing reassessment proceedings against them ought to have been furnished. Therefore, the Court found it best for the AO to 'go back to the drawing board' and, if deemed necessary, reinitiate proceedings as per law. The impugned notices and order were set aside with liberty to the AO to recommence proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.
The High Court held that the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable as the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, and the AO erred in focusing on the investor's bank balance. Regarding Section 80IB, the court affirmed the ITAT's decision that CENVAT credit was not income derived from the industrial undertaking.
The High Court, with the consent of both parties, set aside the ITAT order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the supporting material for miscellaneous expenses claimed by the assessee.
The High Court granted leave to the revenue to place the record before the court concerning the first issue. The appeal was listed for further hearing on a future date.
The Tribunal ruled that the MAP payments were conditional and passed on to sub-distributors, and that previous assessment years with similar facts were decided in favour of the assessee. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arises.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals and de-tagged one specific appeal. Notice was issued in the remaining appeals.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It also de-tagged one appeal from two other connected appeals and corrected a previous order to that extent.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It also de-tagged one specific appeal from the current set of appeals and directed the issuance of notice in the remaining appeals.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court also de-tagged one specific appeal from the connected matters.
The Tribunal ruled that the MAP payments were conditional and passed on to sub-distributors, and that previous assessment years with similar facts were decided in favour of the assessee. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arises.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It also de-tagged one appeal from two others and corrected a previous order to that extent.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The Court also de-tagged one specific appeal from the connected matters and issued notice in the remaining appeals.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The Court also de-tagged one appeal and issued notice in the remaining appeals.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It also ordered that a specific appeal be de-tagged from others and corrected a previous order to reflect this.
The Delhi High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. It also ordered that one specific appeal be de-tagged from two other appeals.
The High Court found that the CIT(A) had determined the transactions to be genuine and the Tribunal affirmed this finding. The revenue failed to provide material to controvert these findings.
The Tribunal correctly categorized pre-operative expenses incurred between business setup and commencement as revenue expenditure. The interest income earned on fixed deposits, inextricably linked to the project's setup, was also rightly set off against business losses.