Loading High Court cases…
955 orders · Page 3 of 20
The High Court noted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11 and has a low tax effect, and therefore, the Revenue would not press the appeal. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court of Delhi noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2003-04 and has a low tax effect. Consequently, the Revenue's counsel stated that they would not press the appeal. Based on this submission, the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as not pressed. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding his share in the property sale or the validity of the Section 148A(d) order. Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to upload the documents he intended to rely upon onto the respondents' portal for the Assessing Officer's consideration. The Court stated that if the petitioner had a grievance against the final order to be passed by the Assessing Officer, he could agitate the same in accordance with the law. No specific finding was made on the issues raised by the petitioner; the matter was disposed of procedurally.
The High Court held that it appeared prima facie that the order passed under Section 148A(3) did not encompass the grounds taken by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the order under Section 148A(3) and the notice issued under Section 148. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit further documents to the AO within three weeks. The AO was directed to consider the reply and documents and pass a reasoned order on the grounds urged, which would entail passing a fresh order under Section 148A(3). The portal for the petitioner's PAN was to be kept open for uploading documents. The entire exercise was to be completed within eight weeks. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires the Assessing Officer to consider all submissions made by the assessee before passing an order under Section 148A(3) and issuing a notice under Section 148.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, was invalid. The reasoning was based on the judgment in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB). The Court noted that the proviso to Section 149 of the Act mandates that a notice under Section 148 in respect of an Assessment Year prior to 01 April 2021 cannot be issued if the period within which such a notice could have been issued under the provisions existing prior to the Finance Act, 2021, had elapsed. The pre-amendment Section 149(1)(b) stipulated a maximum period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing such a notice. Since the notice in the present case was issued on 31.08.2024, which was beyond the six-year period from the end of Assessment Year 2015-16, it was held to be barred by limitation. The Court quashed the notice dated 31.08.2024 and any subsequent proceedings initiated based on it.
The High Court held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan transaction, which was conducted through banking channels. The court also noted that the relevant assessment year predated the amendment requiring proof of the 'source of the source' of funds.
The High Court observed that the validity of proceedings under Section 153A when approval under Section 153D is taken for multiple assessment years together is a settled issue. The Court decided to remand the cross-objections to the ITAT for a fresh decision on this specific issue.
The High Court clarified its previous order to explicitly include the cross-objections related to ITA No. 2362/Del/2023. This ensures that these cross-objections are also revived and decided by the ITAT.
The High Court noted that the validity of such proceedings under Section 153A, when approval under Section 153D is taken for multiple assessment years, is a settled issue. The Court decided to remand the cross-objections to the ITAT for a fresh decision on this specific issue.
The High Court noted that the issue regarding the validity of Section 153A proceedings due to collective approval under Section 153D is well-settled by a previous judgment. Therefore, the Court remanded the cross-objections to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The Delhi High Court noted that the learned Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that the appeal has a low tax effect and therefore, he shall withdraw the appeal and the connected applications. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal and the connected applications are dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the substantive tax dispute was made.
The High Court held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following previous judgments. Similarly, receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services were not considered royalty or fees for technical services as they did not involve making technical knowledge available.
The High Court held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following Supreme Court and its own prior decisions. It also held that receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services are not royalty or fees for technical services, as they do not involve making technical knowledge available.
The High Court held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following Supreme Court and its own prior decisions. It also held that receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services are not royalty or fees for technical services, as they do not involve making technical knowledge available.
The High Court has not made any decision on the merits of the appeals. The order primarily deals with procedural matters. The Court has allowed exemption applications filed by the parties. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that there are other appeals with identical issues pending listing. Consequently, the Court has renotified the matters for a future date, 18.11.2025, to allow for the listing of these other appeals. No findings on any substantive issues have been recorded, and no operative directions have been issued beyond adjourning the hearing.
The High Court held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following Supreme Court and its own prior decisions. It also held that receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services are not royalty or fees for technical services, as they do not involve making technical knowledge available.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This decision was based on the computation sheet filed by the respondent's counsel, which showed the net tax effect to be Rs. 1,81,31,975/-. The appellant's counsel did not contest this figure. The court's reasoning implicitly relies on a policy or guideline where appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold (in this case, Rs. 2 crores, as indicated by the figure) are to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal was not decided on its merits but was disposed of as withdrawn due to the low tax effect.
The High Court held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following Supreme Court and its own prior decisions. It also held that receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services are not royalty or fees for technical services, as they do not involve making technical knowledge available.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned notices and orders. The Court held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a 'change of opinion' by the Assessing Officer. The reasons provided by the Revenue, stemming from a survey, did not constitute fresh or tangible material that was not available or considered during the original assessment. The issues concerning manufacturing expenses and the claim under Section 80JJAA had been examined and accepted in the original assessment. The Court noted that if the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the AO could have invoked powers under Section 263 of the Act. The principle of 'change of opinion' applies when the AO reopens an issue that was already considered and decided in the original assessment, unless new and material facts come to light. The Court found that the material relied upon by the Revenue did not meet this criterion. The plea that the Revenue was attempting to correct a mistake from an earlier AY was also considered valid. The judgment in GKN Drive Shaft (India) Limited v. ITO was distinguished as the present case involved a speaking order on objections, and the reasons provided did not justify reassessment.
The provided judgment is an interim order scheduling a future hearing. It does not contain any findings or decisions on the merits of the appeals. The High Court has only addressed procedural matters, allowing exemption applications and renotifying the appeals for November 18, 2025, to allow for the listing of other identical appeals. No substantive issues have been decided, and therefore, no reasoning or ratio decidendi can be extracted from this order.
The provided judgment does not contain any findings or decisions on the merits of the appeals. The High Court has only addressed procedural matters, specifically the listing of the appeals. The court has allowed exemption applications and has renotified the appeals for a future date, 18.11.2025, to be heard along with other appeals involving identical issues. No substantive issues have been decided, and therefore, no ratio decidendi or operative directions have been issued.
The High Court held that the sale of off-the-shelf software is not royalty, following Supreme Court and its own prior decisions. It also held that receipts for telecom bandwidth and IT support services are not royalty or fees for technical services, as they do not involve making technical knowledge available.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition and pending application with an observation that the assessment proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act shall continue. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to urge all pleas, both on facts and in law, before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider these pleas and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the validity of the Section 148 notice itself but allowed the proceedings to continue for the Assessing Officer to examine the petitioner's contentions. No specific finding was given on the applicability of the Benaifer Vispi Patel case.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated June 23, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deserved to be set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The Court noted that the impugned order was passed prior to the GST order dated July 11, 2025, and therefore, the GST order could not have been considered by the concerned officer. However, the Court acknowledged that the closing of proceedings by the GST Department would have a bearing on the Section 148A proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, taking into account the GST order. The legality and validity of the impugned notice itself, specifically the submission regarding independent reasoning by the Income Tax Department, was left open to be canvassed at a later stage if necessary. The Petitioner was directed to place the GST order before the concerned authority within four weeks, and the authority was directed to pass a reasoned order within three months. All rights and contentions of both parties were left open.
The High Court set aside the order dated 10.05.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 10.05.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that a communication from Canara Bank needed to be considered. The Assessing Officer is directed to take this communication into account and provide a hearing to the petitioner or their representative. The entire exercise is to be completed within eight weeks. All pleas of the petitioner are left open to be canvassed before the Assessing Officer. No specific finding was made on the validity of the original order or notice, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
The High Court noted that the respondent had filed Form-IV, evidencing settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. In light of this, the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that they would not press the appeals. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeals as 'not pressed'. The ratio decidendi is that when a settlement is reached under a scheme like Vivad se Vishwas, and the Revenue agrees not to press the appeal, the appeal will be dismissed on that procedural ground without delving into the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court, upon being informed by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals had a low tax effect and that the Revenue wished to withdraw them, dismissed the appeals along with the pending applications as withdrawn. No findings were made on the merits of any issue, and no reasoning was provided beyond the acceptance of the Revenue's request for withdrawal. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court of Delhi, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar, noted that the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue stated that the appeals had a low tax effect and therefore, the Revenue wished to withdraw them along with the pending applications. Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeals along with the pending applications be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of any substantive tax issue.