Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 5 of 13
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 High Court held that the impugned order and notice were bad in law as they were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. This was based on a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court and followed by the High Court in similar cases.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issues were covered by prior judgments. The court also noted that Section 14A would not be attracted if shares and securities are held as stock-in-trade, which was not disputed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the annulment of the assessment order had been sustained by the Court in a previous related appeal.
The High Court noted that the revenue had not raised the issues concerning Section 54(2) before the lower authorities. The court also found that the CIT(A) and Tribunal had affirmed the finding that construction was carried out within the statutory period.
The Tribunal held that the amounts retained by agencies were trade discounts, not commission, as the relationship was principal-to-principal, thus no TDS obligation arose. The CIT(A) was also found to have correctly applied Rule 8D for disallowances related to exempt income.
The High Court noted that the revenue did not dispute that the issue in the present appeal was covered by a previous decision of the court. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that the reimbursement of expenses for marketing, frequent flyer, frequent guest, and reservation fees cannot be treated as fees for technical services. The court noted that this issue was covered by previous judgments.
The Tribunal ruled that the reimbursements were not fees for technical services under the Indo-Singapore DTAA and Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The High Court found the issue covered by previous judgments.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The court also allowed the amendment application, directing the appellant to file an amended appeal with the correct Assessment Year.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The court also allowed the amendment application, directing the appellant to file the amended appeal with the correct Assessment Year.
The High Court has admitted the Revenue's applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. The core issue of whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was in order will be examined on the next date.
The High Court held that the deduction for bad debts acquired from a predecessor was allowable, as the debts had become bad and were offered for tax by the predecessor. Regarding training expenses, the court held that the entire expenditure was deductible under Section 37 of the Act.
The High Court has issued notice to the respondent and listed the applications for condonation of delay for further hearing. The core issue of addition made by the AO under Section 68 will be examined on the next date.
The High Court held that the deletion of the addition by the Tribunal was sustainable. The valuation report, which used the DCF method permissible under Rule 11UA, showed the share value was higher than the issue price, indicating it was not a sham transaction.
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as shares were stock-in-trade, and other issues were covered by previous judgments of coordinate benches or the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay. The respondent's counsel did not oppose the prayers made by the appellant.
The High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The Court also granted the revenue's request to list the matter for a future date, specifically November 2, 2023. Furthermore, the Court granted leeway to the revenue's counsel, Mr. Puneet Rai, to raise an additional ground and take steps for amending the appeal. The specific reasons for the delay and the merits of the substantive appeal were not decided in this order, as it primarily dealt with procedural aspects and the condonation of delay.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the compensation received for a non-compete agreement, which restricted the assessee's income sources for a period, should be treated as a capital receipt.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals. It upheld the Tribunal's deletion of additions under Section 14A, citing that shares were held as stock-in-trade. Other issues were also found to be covered by previous judgments or the principle of consistency.
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as shares were stock-in-trade. Other issues were also found to be covered by previous High Court or Supreme Court decisions in favour of the assessee.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the compensation received for a non-compete agreement, which restricted the assessee's income sources for a period, should be treated as a capital receipt.
The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as shares were stock-in-trade, and other issues were covered by previous judgments of coordinate benches or the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the assessee and listed the appeal for further hearing. The revenue argues that the Tribunal's order is unsustainable in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind regarding incriminating material for each assessment year. The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind. The JCIT did not verify the existence of incriminating material for each assessment year before granting approval.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 153A cannot be initiated without finding incriminating material during a search, especially in cases of completed assessments. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view.
The High Court held that the undisclosed income, which was the subject of the dispute, had already been taxed in the hands of the flagship company, Surya Food & Agro Ltd. Therefore, it could not be subjected to tax again in the hands of the respondent assessee companies in the form of their share capital. The Court reasoned that the flagship company had specifically declared before the Settlement Commission that the undisclosed income offered was applied as share capital to the group entities (the respondents/assessees) and that no other undisclosed assets or applications of funds were found. The Settlement Commission's final order, which settled the income at Rs. 55,77,22,000/-, had attained finality as it was not challenged by either side. The Court found support in various High Court judgments, including those from Gujarat and its own coordinate benches, which reiterated the principle that the same money cannot be taxed twice and that orders of the Settlement Commission are conclusive. Consequently, the question of law was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessees. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The Court directed the Revenue to take steps for service on the assessee and listed the matter for further hearing. The Revenue was also asked to file a written note and obtain statutory records.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision concerning the same assessee, and no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal had returned findings of fact regarding the exclusion of four comparables (Avani, Wipro, Persistent, and E-Zest) based on the unavailability of segmental data or the nature of services offered. The High Court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the ITAT's decision.
The High Court condoned the delay and noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision concerning the same assessee. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that since the due date for deposit fell on a national holiday, the deposit made on the following day was to be considered within time. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. It noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision concerning the same assessee, and no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the AO's approach was unsustainable and misdirected, as the disallowance of expenses was based on the incorrect premise that no expenses could be claimed if no income was earned under Section 28. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view.
The High Court held that the AO's approach was unsustainable and misdirected, as the disallowance of expenses was based on the incorrect premise that no expenses could be claimed if no income was earned under Section 28. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view.
The High Court noted that the issue in the present appeal was covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate bench. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that the ITAT may have misdirected itself on facts and law by excluding OTL without properly considering its powers under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh decision.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. The matters were then listed for further hearing on a future date.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. The court also directed that these appeals be listed on a future date, along with other similar matters.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. The court issued notice and listed the appeal for further hearing.
The High Court held that the ITAT may have misdirected itself on facts and law by excluding OTL without properly considering its powers under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act. The matter was remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh decision.
The High Court issued notice to the assessee and listed the appeal for further hearing. The court did not decide the merits of the case in this order.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delays in filing and re-filing the appeals. The court also directed that these appeals be listed on a future date, along with other related matters.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. The court also directed that these appeals be listed on a future date, as the issue involved is common to other pending matters.
The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order dated 25.07.2023, passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was to be set aside. The reasoning was that the objections/reply filed by the petitioner on 23.01.2023 were apparently not taken into account by the Assessing Officer while passing the order. The Court found that the best course of action was to quash the existing order and allow the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. Before passing the fresh order, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner and issue a notice indicating the date and time of the hearing. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the inordinate delay in disposing of the rectification application filed on May 25, 2016, which far exceeded the statutory six-month period stipulated under Section 154(1) and 154(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Instruction No.1 of 2016. While directing the concerned officer to dispose of the rectification application within four weeks of receiving the judgment, the Court also addressed the petitioner's delay in approaching the Court. The Court held that given the petitioner's own delay in approaching the Court for over seven years, interest on the refund, between the expiry of the six-month period and October 9, 2019 (the date of the first representation to the respondent, as noted by the Court), ought not to be paid to the petitioner. The operative direction is for the disposal of the application and consequential refund, but with a curtailment of interest.
The High Court held that questions of law related to the ITAT's decision on profit attribution and royalty income were covered by a previous decision, thus no substantial question of law arose. Furthermore, issues not urged before the statutory authorities could not be entertained.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. It prima facie found no substantial question of law arising for consideration, given the ITAT's factual findings.
The High Court held that questions of law related to the adoption of a 15% profit attribution and income from royalty were covered by a previous decision, thus no substantial question of law arose. Questions regarding FAR analysis were not entertained as they were not urged before the statutory authorities.