Loading High Court cases…
638 orders · Page 8 of 13
The High Court admitted the appeals for consideration. It framed a question of law regarding the sustainability of the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill under Section 32.
The High Court held that the services rendered under the Commissionaire Agreement did not qualify as technical or consultancy services. It also confirmed that subscription fees for e-journals could not be treated as royalty as no copyright was granted.
The High Court admitted the appeals for consideration. It framed a substantial question of law regarding the sustainability of the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, especially post-demerger.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants should be factored in when calculating the percentage of government financing. The High Court agreed with this view, finding it wholesome and that no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on grants should be factored in when calculating the percentage of government financing. The High Court agreed with this view, finding it wholesome and that no substantial question of law arose.
The Tribunal held that cancelling the registration retrospectively might not be sustainable. It also observed that there was no prohibition against the trust remitting funds to another trust.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court noted that the issues were covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The court then closed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issue was covered by previous judgments.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The court admitted the appeals and framed a question of law concerning the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Section 11(4) of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted the appeals for hearing. A specific question of law regarding exemption under Section 11(4) was framed.
The High Court noted that the proposed question of law was covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench. Consequently, the appeal and pending applications were closed.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that no substantial question of law arose. The first proposed question of law was covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench, rendering the second question of perversity moot.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not required to demonstrate commercial expediency in each year for a loan taken in an earlier year, especially when the revenue neutrality of the interest expenditure is established.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was conceded by the revenue that the question of law was covered by previous judgments of a coordinate bench.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not required to demonstrate commercial expediency in each year for a loan taken in an earlier year, especially when the revenue neutrality of the interest expenditure is established.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file fresh appeals for each of the concerned Assessment Years. It was also directed that the appellant would have to revisit the questions of law framed in the appeal. The Court stated that if fresh appeals are filed, they will be examined as per law at the relevant point in time. Consequently, all pending applications were closed. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant withdrew the appeal as not pressed, and the court granted liberty to approach them again if necessary.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to record a clear satisfaction as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was attracted. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the need for clarity in the notice regarding the nature of the infraction.
The High Court noted the ITAT's findings regarding the absence of a PE and DAPE. The court scheduled the appeal for further hearing on a future date, along with a connected appeal.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the court. Consequently, the appeal was closed.
The High Court held that the incriminating material found during the search did not concern the assessment year in issue. This position was not disputed by the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court held that Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, being a special law, would prevail over the general provisions of the RTI Act regarding disclosure of information related to assessees. The CIC's order was set aside.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the court. Consequently, the appeal was closed.
The High Court agreed with the respondent's preliminary objection that an appeal under Section 260A does not lie against the impugned order. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file a writ petition instead.
The High Court found the Family Court's assessment of the parties' incomes and the granted interim maintenance to be reasonable. The court noted that both parties are equally qualified and tend to exaggerate income claims during disputes.
The High Court held that UPS is an integral part of computers and eligible for 60% depreciation, upholding the ITAT's decision. It also agreed that the subsidy received was a capital receipt and could not be adjusted against the block of assets.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeals. The matters were then adjourned to a later date for further hearing.
The High Court condoned the delay of 300 days in re-filing the appeals. The court also adjourned the hearing of the appeals to a later date as requested by the Revenue.
The Delhi High Court allowed the applications for condonation of delay, subject to just exceptions. The matters were adjourned to a later date.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The court also granted the Revenue's request for an adjournment and listed the matters for a future date.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the additions made by the AO were not based on incriminating material relevant to the assessment years in question. The court found no substantial question of law.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The court noted that the issues raised were covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate bench, and since no substantial question of law arose, the appeals were closed.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no reason to interfere as no incriminating material relevant to the assessment years in question was found. The court noted that the issue was covered by established precedents.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the issues were covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate bench, against which an SLP was dismissed.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that no incriminating material was found for the assessment years in question. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that the notice dated 23.05.2022 under Section 148A(b) cannot be declared untenable in law. This is because, as per the assessee's own submission, the limitation for AY 2019-20 would have expired only on 31.03.2023. The mere reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Aggarwal's case does not render the notice invalid, as it is common ground that post-01.04.2021, notices must be issued under the new regime, and the notice in question was indeed issued under Section 148A(b). However, the court found merit in the assessee's second contention. Since proceedings on similar aspects had been dropped in earlier AYs (2013-14 to 2017-18) and dealt with in AY 2018-19 and AY 2020-21, the AO was directed to advert to the record of these earlier assessment years before passing the assessment order for AY 2019-20. While acknowledging that res-judicata does not apply to different AYs, the court emphasized the principle of consistency, stating that if reasons for reopening are consistently similar, the AO needs to apply this principle. The AO was directed to pass a speaking assessment order addressing this aspect. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated April 28, 2023, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous. The court found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had indeed moved away from the allegations initially made in the notice dated March 23, 2023, issued under Section 148A(b). Specifically, the AO's conclusion regarding the applicability of Section 50CA of the Act, based on the absence of a valuation report, was not foreshadowed in the Section 148A(b) notice. Furthermore, the court noted that if the transaction was indeed an investment, the provisions of Section 50CA might not have been applicable in the first place. Consequently, the court set aside the order under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148. The AO was granted liberty to recommence proceedings, provided they conducted an examination based on the allegations originally embedded in the Section 148A(b) notice.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal and issued notice to the respondent. The court noted that the ITAT had only examined the royalty aspect and not the FTS aspect, which the Revenue intended to pursue.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal and issued notice to the respondent. The court acknowledged that the ITAT's decision on royalty was based on a Supreme Court judgment, but the FTS aspect was not fully examined.
The High Court set aside the assessment order. The Court reasoned that the revenue was aware of the death of Mr. Kuldip Kohli and that Mr. Darpan Kohli had attended assessment proceedings as his legal representative. Given this knowledge, the assessment order could not have been directed solely against the deceased assessee. The Court directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to issue fresh notices to the petitioners, granting them an opportunity to present their defense on the merits of the case. The AO was also instructed to permit the petitioners to file written responses and to pass a speaking order, a copy of which would be furnished to the petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order dated 15.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was vitiated because the Assessing Officer failed to consider the petitioner's response filed on 30.03.2023. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 15.04.2023. As a result, the consequential notice dated 15.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act was also rendered ineffective and collapsed. The Court granted liberty to the Assessing Officer to take further steps in the matter in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments of coordinate benches, including one where one of the judges was part of the bench. The Supreme Court had also dismissed a Special Leave Petition against a similar judgment on both delay and merits.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Revenue's application for condonation of delay. The Court then closed the appeal as the questions of law were covered by a previous decision.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments of coordinate benches, including one where a judge was part of the bench. The Supreme Court had also dismissed a Special Leave Petition on similar grounds.
The High Court issued notice to the respondents in these appeals. The appeals are listed for further hearing on a future date.
The High Court issued notice to the respondents (assessees) to be served through all modes, including email. The matters were then listed for further hearing on a future date.
The revenue contended that the appeals were maintainable despite the tax effect being below the threshold, citing a CBDT circular. The court issued notice to the respondents.
The Tribunal correctly held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met. The sale was conducted by lenders to recover dues, and the AO had already inquired into the sale.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay of 45 days in re-filing the appeal. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment.
The High Court found no substantial question of law regarding the bright line test, as the ITAT's view aligned with a previous High Court judgment. For the royalty issue, the court issued a notice to the assessee.