Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 7 of 13
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. However, it noted that the proposed questions of law were covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the exclusion of Accentia Technology Ltd. and Cosmic Global Ltd. were not perverse and did not raise a substantial question of law. Therefore, the court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The High Court agreed with the counsels for both parties that the impugned order should be set aside. The matter was remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh hearing.
The High Court agreed with the counsels for both parties that the impugned order should be set aside. The matter was remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh hearing.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises as it was undisputed that the penalty notice did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was closed.
The Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income as the utilization of corpus was disclosed in the revised return. It also noted that the penalty notice did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) that was triggered, making it invalid.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by previous judgments, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed an SLP on merits and delay. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court found that a similar issue had arisen in another appeal (ITA No. 761/2018) decided on the same day. In that case, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by previous judgments, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed an SLP on merits and delay. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by previous judgments, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed an SLP on merits and delay. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by previous judgments, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed an SLP on merits and delay. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by previous judgments, including one where the Supreme Court dismissed an SLP on merits and delay. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the Revenue's contention was unmerited. Section 195 of the Act mandates deduction of tax only in respect of income that is chargeable under the Act. If the payment made to a non-resident is not chargeable to tax under the Act, there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct or deposit tax. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income – Tax, A.P v. Toshoku Ltd., which held that commission amounts earned by non-resident assessees for services rendered outside India cannot be deemed to be incomes that have accrued or arisen in India if no operations are carried out in the taxable territories. The Court found no material to suggest that the non-resident agents had any permanent establishment or business connection in India rendering them liable to tax. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal correctly held that an addition cannot be sustained if it is based solely on a statement recorded under Section 133A without corroborative material. Statements recorded under Section 133A lack evidentiary value as they are not on oath.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration as the issue is covered by the judgment in CIT(A) vs. Kabul Chawla, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeals were closed.
The High Court issued notice on the Revenue's applications seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. The appeals were listed for further hearing.
The High Court held that the appeals were covered by the coordinate bench's judgment in CIT(A) vs. Kabul Chawla, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The tribunal directed Ambience to deposit the entire amount received from Indiabulls for the uncancelled units with the Court Registry. Until the deposit is made, Ambience is restrained from creating third-party rights in the disputed units.
The High Court issued notice to the assessee regarding the applications for condonation of delay. The appeals will be heard if the delay is condoned.
The High Court has issued notice to the respondent/assessee, specifically concerning the applications for condonation of delay. The appeals will be heard if the delay is condoned.
The Tribunal correctly held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly triggered. The Assessing Officer lacked tangible material and relied on a change of opinion, as the assessee had made full disclosure.
The High Court noted that the matter required examination of facts by statutory authorities. The revenue was asked to confirm its agreement to a remand of the issue to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the income was not taxable as per the India-US Tax Treaty and that the assessee had inadvertently reported it under the wrong head. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, noting that revenue officers have a duty to assist taxpayers in claiming reliefs.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. The respondent-assessee did not oppose the prayer made by the appellant-revenue.
The High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. The court also directed parties to file written submissions and listed the appeals for further hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court closed the appeal following previous decisions of coordinate benches on similar issues, subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court SLPs.
The High Court held that the penalty notice was vague as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked. Additionally, the issue regarding ALV was debatable at the relevant time.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court closed the appeal, following previous decisions of coordinate benches on similar issues, while noting that any Supreme Court ruling would be binding.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issue was covered by a coordinate bench's judgment, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order in terms of the Supreme Court's observations. The Supreme Court had held that while the assessee's activities were for general public utility, they primarily benefited trade and business, thus not qualifying for exemption.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it noted that a similar appeal for the same assessment year had previously been dismissed.
The High Court held that the question of law is answered in favour of the appellant/assessee and against the respondent/revenue. The Court found that the Tribunal had committed fundamental errors of fact and law. The Tribunal wrongly calculated a provision for bad debts based on an incorrect profit figure for AY 2002-03, leading to an erroneous disallowance of Rs.10,78,12,469/-. The Court noted that in AY 2003-04, there was no provision made for bad debts. Given this, and relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., the appellant was entitled to claim a deduction for irrecoverable bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, as the conditions under Section 36(2) were fulfilled. The Court emphasized that Section 36(1)(vii) and Section 36(1)(viia) are distinct and independent. Since no provision for bad and doubtful debts was made, the first proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) was not applicable. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court issued notice to the respondent assessee and listed the appeal for further hearing. The core issue is whether the assessee's activities fall under the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court of Delhi did not decide any substantive issues in these appeals. The Court's order pertains to procedural aspects. It noted that connected appeals are listed for hearing on December 13, 2023, and directed that these appeals be listed on the same date. The Court also granted time for the Assessee's counsel to file their Vakalatnama and allowed applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. No findings on the merits of the case or any operative directions regarding the assessment or dispute were made.
The High Court held that the tax sparing provisions in the DTAA are intended to incentivize investment and that tax credit is available even if tax was not paid due to statutory exemptions in the source country. The court found the revenue's argument to be misconceived.
The High Court held that the tax sparing provisions in the DTAA are intended to incentivize investment and allow for tax credit even if tax was not paid due to exemptions in the source country. The court found the revenue's argument to be misconceived.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The Court granted the Revenue six weeks to file the appeals in the correct jurisdiction, subject to legal provisions.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The Court granted the Revenue six weeks to file the appeals in the correct jurisdiction.
The High Court did not decide any substantive issues in these appeals. The Court merely noted that the Revenue's counsel stated that connected appeals are listed for December 13, 2023. Accordingly, the Court directed that the present appeals be listed on the same date, along with the connected matters. The Court also noted the appearance of the assessee's counsel and directed the filing of the Vakalatnama within 10 days. No findings were made on any disputed points, and no operative directions were issued beyond scheduling the next hearing.
The High Court held that the tax sparing provisions in the DTAA are intended to incentivize investment and allow for tax credit even if tax was not paid due to exemptions in the source country. The court found the revenue's argument to be misconceived.
The Delhi High Court did not decide any substantive issues in these appeals. The Court allowed the miscellaneous applications filed by the parties, subject to just exceptions. The primary action taken was to list the appeals for hearing on December 13, 2023, alongside other connected matters. The Court also directed the respondent assessee's counsel to file a Vakalatnama within ten days. No findings on merits or operative directions regarding the income tax assessment were issued.
The High Court decided the common question of law against the appellant (revenue) and in favour of the respondent (assessee). Therefore, the same outcome applies to these appeals.
The High Court decided the common question of law against the appellant (revenue) and in favour of the respondent (assessee). Therefore, the same outcome applies to these appeals.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to exclude the four comparables (ATPL, I-Gate, Infosys, and TCS International) due to extraordinary financial events or dissimilar services. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's findings.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Revenue to move the appropriate High Court.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for triggering reassessment proceedings were vague and lacked a live link between the material available and the belief that income had escaped assessment. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision.
The High Court decided the common question of law against the appellant (revenue) and in favour of the respondent (assessee). Therefore, the same outcome applies to these appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appellant's failure to respond to the respondent's notice asserting the Rs. 18,000 rent created an adverse inference. Considering the property's location and commercial nature, Rs. 18,000 was deemed a reasonable rent.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. The Court noted that the issue raised was covered by its prior decisions, where it held that no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the ACIT's lack of application of mind were correct. The court found the ACIT's approval to be mechanical and invalid.