Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 6 of 13
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 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 of Delhi, without making any observations on the merits of the matter, inclined to set aside the assessment order dated May 18, 2023, as the best way forward. The Court ordered accordingly. Liberty was granted to the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass a fresh assessment order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner stated she would file a response within three weeks, and the AO was directed to ensure the portal is opened for her to upload the reply. The petitioner was also given liberty to transmit a copy of the reply via email to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO was further directed to issue a notice for a personal hearing, indicating the date and time, and thereafter pass a speaking order. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that payments for off-the-shelf, shrink-wrapped software do not constitute royalty under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, following a Supreme Court judgment.
The Court noted a correction to a previous order regarding the application filing date. It also granted leave to the revenue to file an affidavit with tracking reports and proof of delivery of a communication.
The High Court agreed that the transaction involved the sale of copyright material (software) and not the transfer of copyright. The issue was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT.
The High Court admitted the appeal, framing specific questions of law for consideration. The court acknowledged that the matter requires further examination regarding the addition of income in the hands of the ultimate beneficiary and the applicability of Section 68.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided not to interfere with the ITAT's order. The court found no substantial question of law and noted the liberty granted by the ITAT to revive the appeal after the moratorium is lifted.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals by the Revenue. It then issued notice and listed the appeals for hearing along with a related appeal concerning AY 2009-10.
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay. It held that the appellant's application was completely bereft of even circumstances, let alone sufficient cause, explaining the inordinate delay of 498 days. The court found the Revenue's explanation of procedural delays and processing through official channels to be pathetically absurd and unacceptable, especially given the long period of delay. The court emphasized that the concept of liberal interpretation and substantial justice cannot be overstretched to render the law of limitation otiose, particularly when there is absolutely no justification for the delay. The court noted that the expiration of the limitation period gives rise to a substantive right in favour of the decree holder (assessee). The court also highlighted that the legislature already grants a comparatively long period of 120 days for the revenue to file appeals, necessitating stricter scrutiny of delay explanations. The court expressed anguish over the continued laxity, negligence, and dereliction of duties by government officials, referencing the Supreme Court's observations in Bherulal (supra). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
The High Court found no interference was called for with the Tribunal's order. The court agreed that the assessee failed to show reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal.
The Delhi High Court held that the INR 50 lakh threshold is a trigger for initiating reassessment action under Section 148, not a definitive amount of escaped income. The final computation of escaped income could fall below this figure without invalidating the initial jurisdiction.
The Tribunal correctly held that the assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is not sustainable. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view.
The Tribunal correctly held that the assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is not sustainable. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of clarity renders the notice defective.
The Delhi High Court allowed the applications filed by the appellant, subject to the condition that legible copies of annexures are filed at least three days before the next hearing. Notices were directed to be issued to the respondent.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of annexures. The court also issued notice to the respondent and listed the appeals for further hearing.
The Court allowed the applications, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of annexures at least three days before the next hearing. Notices were to be issued to the respondent via all modes.
The High Court allowed the applications filed by the appellant, subject to the condition of filing legible annexures. The court also directed that notice be issued to the respondent via all modes, including email.
The High Court closed the appeal, following its previous decision in a similar case concerning the same assessee. The parties were informed that they would be bound by the outcome of pending Special Leave Petitions in related matters.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The Court then closed the appeal as the issue was covered by a prior judgment of the same court.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Court noted that the ITAT had disposed of the appeal with a caveat, allowing the Revenue to take further steps if additions in another related matter were deleted.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Court noted that the ITAT had disposed of the appeal with a caveat, allowing the Revenue to take further steps if additions in another related matter were deleted.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Court noted that the ITAT had disposed of the appeal with a caveat, allowing the Revenue to take further steps if additions in another related matter were deleted.
The High Court adjourned the hearing of the appeals to a future date. This was done at the request of the parties, pending the listing of a related appeal concerning AY 2012-13.
The Tribunal held that the sale of copyrighted material, as opposed to the copyright itself, does not constitute royalty. Therefore, no royalty income accrued to the assessee.
The High Court has adjourned the hearing of these appeals. The court noted that an appeal concerning AY 2012-13, which had DRP findings in favor of the assessee, was also being filed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of all four additions made by the AO. It also ruled in favor of the assessee on the issue of the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court decided to list the captioned appeals for hearing on October 16, 2023. This decision was based on the information provided by the revenue that notices have already been issued for its appeals concerning other Assessment Years (2009-10 to 2015-16) and that these appeals are scheduled for the same date. The court's reasoning is to ensure procedural efficiency and to hear related matters together. No specific findings on the merits of the income tax disputes for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were made, as the order pertains solely to the listing of the appeals. The operative direction is to list the appeals on the specified date.
The Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The main issue regarding the existence of a Fixed Place PE or Supervisory PE was listed for further hearing.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeals. Instead, it noted that the Revenue had filed appeals for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, and also for several other AYs (2009-10 to 2015-16). For the other AYs, notices had been issued, and those appeals were listed for hearing on 16.10.2023. Consequently, the High Court directed that the present appeals (for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18) be listed on the same date, i.e., 16.10.2023. No findings on any specific issues or operative directions were given, other than adjourning the hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court listed the appeals for further hearing on the substantive issue of Permanent Establishment.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The appeals were then listed for further hearing on the merits of the case.
The High Court admitted the appeal and framed questions of law regarding the ITAT's confirmation of the addition and whether the ITAT's order was perverse. The court also directed the filing of legible annexures and written submissions.
The High Court agreed with the ITAT that the consideration for 'off the shelf' software was not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. No substantial question of law arose.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the sale of 'off the shelf' software does not involve the transfer or use of copyright, and therefore, the consideration is not royalty. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.
The High Court agreed with the ITAT that the consideration for 'off the shelf' software was not royalty, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. No substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal's view was that the cumulative addition of Rs. 9,11,45,950/- was solely based on the deceased assessee's statement under Section 132(4). The High Court granted time to the Revenue to file the relevant documents, including the statement and departmental report.
The High Court held that the proposed questions of law were covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court noted that the service agreement, crucial for the appeal, was not on record and directed the revenue to produce it. The appeal was adjourned for further hearing.
The Tribunal correctly corrected the error made by the AO and CIT(A) by setting aside the addition. The AO had erroneously applied a later version of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was unsustainable as it lacked reasons and did not specify the issues for fresh inquiry by the AO. The matter was remanded to the ITAT for a de novo hearing.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order was unsustainable as it lacked reasons and did not specify the issues for fresh inquiry by the AO. The matter was remanded to the ITAT for a de novo hearing.
The High Court noted that the appeals had become infructuous as the period extended by the interim order had expired. A fresh order extending the interim order had also been passed by the ITAT.
The Tribunal's disallowance of the business loss was upheld because the appellant failed to provide sufficient material to establish the genuineness of the transaction, including the original agreement and timely communication regarding defects.
The High Court held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. This view was found to be covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate bench.
The High Court closed the appeal and pending applications as the matter had become infructuous. The court explicitly stated that the merits of the case and the defenses of the assessee remained open.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court then closed the appeals, granting liberty to the revenue to file a writ petition.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The court then closed the appeals, granting the revenue liberty to file a writ petition.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the ITAT's finding that no incriminating material was found for the relevant assessment year was supported by previous judgments, including one affirmed by the Supreme Court.