Loading High Court cases…
955 orders · Page 5 of 20
The High Court found no justification to entertain the appeals, citing the principle of consistency and the lack of distinguishing facts. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court has decided to issue notice in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The reasoning for this decision is based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that an identical issue has been considered by the High Court in ITA no. 160/2025, and notice was issued in that matter. This implies the Court finds sufficient grounds to proceed with the hearing of the present appeal. The operative direction is the issuance of notice, returnable on 15.12.2025. No specific finding on the merits of the case has been made at this stage, as this is an interim order. The issue of the substantive merits of the appeal remains undecided.
The High Court, taking on record the submission of the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sawhney, that the petitioner would not plead that the order under Section 148A(3) was passed beyond the period of limitation, and also not pressing the plea regarding the legality of the notice under Section 148A(1), set aside the order and notice dated 30.06.2025. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the documents as stated by the petitioner, including TRC, full bank statements, and full reconciliation of foreign exchange and cost, and any other documents or replies deemed appropriate after giving prior notice. The Assessing Officer is to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 12 weeks from the date of the order. The ratio is that procedural lapses in the reassessment proceedings can lead to a remand for fresh consideration, especially when parties agree to cooperate with further proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the order passed under Section 148A(3) was a speaking order that duly considered all pleas advanced by the petitioner. The Court found no reason to interfere at this stage, citing the settled position of law as per the Supreme Court judgment in Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (2022) 16 SCC 139. The Court reiterated that the formation of opinion and reasons to believe for reopening are administrative in character, and while the belief is justiciable, it is tested against the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness, not as an appellate authority. The Court emphasized that it would not examine the sufficiency or adequacy of the reasons, only whether they were actuated by mala fides or based on mere pretence. The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in CVT v Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 342 of 2011) stating that a 'live link' between material and reasons for reopening is sufficient for proceedings under Section 147. The Court noted that the order under Section 148A(3) was passed after obtaining prior approval as required by Section 151 and that the time limit under Section 149(1)(a) was not lapsed. Therefore, the impugned order needed no interference as no jurisdiction plea was advanced.
The High Court held that assessees have a statutory right to approach the ITSC for concession, citing the Bombay High Court in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory. While the legislature has the right to make retrospective amendments, taking away vested rights requires express words or necessary implication, which were absent in the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found no intent to extinguish the right to file applications between February 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021. The ITSC existed until March 31, 2021, making applications filed before this date valid. The Court agreed with the Madras, Bombay, and Kerala High Courts that the press release and subsequent order dated 28.09.2021, which purportedly relaxed provisions, could not deny benefits to a class of assessees. Consequently, paragraph 4(i) of the order dated 28.09.2021 was read down to consider January 31, 2021, as March 31, 2021. The settlement applications filed on March 22, 2021, were treated as pending applications to be considered by the Interim Board. The notices issued under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were stayed until the settlement applications are decided.
The High Court noted that the ITAT's decisions, which favored the assessee, were based on prior rulings in the assessee's own cases for multiple assessment years. The Revenue could not contest these prior ITAT decisions, which had also been upheld by the High Court in similar appeals.
The High Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the appeal in this order. The order primarily deals with procedural matters. The delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue has been condoned, and exemption has been granted. Notice has been issued to the Assessee, who has accepted it. The court has directed both parties to file written submissions and relevant judgments within four weeks. The appeal has been listed for further hearing on November 10, 2025. No findings on any substantive issues have been made, and no operative directions regarding the dispute itself have been issued.
The High Court held that the submission of the petitioners could not be accepted. It reasoned that this Court had settled the law in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, which, despite being under challenge before the Supreme Court, had not been stayed. The Court maintained a consistent position that both the JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. The Court noted that the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLPs, even if on merits, does not necessarily set aside judgments of High Courts unless explicitly stated or if leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is decided. The Court found that the SLP preferred against T.K.S. Builders was still pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the judgment in T.K.S. Builders would continue to hold fort regarding the jurisdiction in Delhi, and the Court was bound by it. The Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them.
The High Court held that the submission of the petitioners could not be accepted. It reasoned that the Delhi High Court had settled the law in T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, which, despite being under challenge before the Supreme Court, had not been stayed. The Court reiterated its consistent position that both the JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. The Court clarified that a dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court, even if mentioning "merits," does not necessarily affirm the reasoning of the High Court judgments relied upon by the petitioner or negate the Delhi High Court's view, especially when the SLP is dismissed without dealing with the issue substantively. The Court emphasized that the SLP preferred against T.K.S. Builders was still pending adjudication. Therefore, the judgment in T.K.S. Builders would continue to hold fort regarding the jurisdiction within Delhi. The Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them, along with pending applications.
The High Court, noting the submission of the revenue's counsel, agreed that the Assessing Officer (AO) should examine all aspects urged by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 28.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) and the notice dated 28.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO was directed to pass a fresh and reasoned order within four weeks of receiving the Court's order and then proceed in accordance with law. The Court clarified that if the petitioner had any grievance with the subsequent reasoned order, it would have the liberty to seek available remedies. The principle derived is that reassessment proceedings initiated without proper application of mind or sufficient material, especially when the assessee has provided explanations and relevant statutory provisions, can be quashed, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings if valid information is obtained.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the assessee to deposit 20% of the demand, approximately Rs. 1.65 crores, on or before 03.10.2025. Upon receipt of the challan evidencing this deposit, the thirteen attached bank accounts would be immediately released. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) by way of an application challenging the AO's order within one week, i.e., on or before 03.10.2025. The CIT would then consider the aspect of the balance 80% of the demand. The Court made it clear that a serious view would be taken if the 20% deposit was not made within the stipulated time. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open to be canvassed before the CIT. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 02/Del/2021. The Tribunal correctly noted that its power under Section 254(2) is limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to reviewing its own decisions. The Tribunal found no such apparent mistake. Furthermore, considering the history of the case, which involved multiple rounds of litigation spanning approximately 30 years since the assessment initiation, and the fact that the assessee failed to comply with seven out of nine notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order did not cause prejudice. The Tribunal also noted that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal had provided full and fair opportunities for the assessee to present its contentions on merits. Crucially, the assessee had not challenged the Tribunal's order dated 31.10.2019 on merits. Therefore, the High Court found no reason to intervene and dismissed the appeal.
The Delhi High Court, after considering the reasons provided in the applications for condonation of delay, decided to condone the delay in re-filing and filing of both ITA 479/2025 and ITA 480/2025. The Court allowed the applications, subject to all just exceptions, and disposed of them. The Court also granted exemptions in respect of the appeals, again subject to all just exceptions. The substantive appeals themselves were not decided on merits; instead, the matter was re-notified for a future date, October 27, 2025, at the request of the Revenue's counsel. No findings were made on the merits of the tax dispute.
The High Court of Delhi, after considering the reasons provided in the applications, decided to condone the delays in both re-filing and filing the captioned appeals. The court also granted exemptions, subject to all just exceptions. The operative directions were to condone the delays and dispose of the applications accordingly. The appeals themselves were not decided on merits; rather, the procedural hurdles were cleared. No specific issues related to the substantive tax dispute were addressed or decided.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. Regarding the first issue concerning the competency of the JAO or FAO, the Court noted that this was covered against the petitioner by its own judgment in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi, which held that both authorities possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. For the second issue, relating to the period of limitation, the Court relied on its prior decision in Raminder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In that case, the Court had held that the period provided to the assessee to respond to a notice under Section 148A(b) must be excluded, and if the remaining limitation period is less than seven days, it gets extended by seven days. The Court found that the notice in the present case was issued on the last date of the limitation period, making the petitioner's contention of it being beyond limitation erroneous. The Court also noted that a Special Leave Petition against the Raminder Singh judgment was pending before the Supreme Court but no stay had been granted. Consequently, both pleas advanced by the petitioner were deemed unmerited, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The pending application was also disposed of as infructuous.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Court held that a co-ordinate bench in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer had settled the issue regarding jurisdiction in Delhi, establishing that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the Faceless Assessing Officer possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. This decision was followed by another co-ordinate bench in PC Jeweller Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. The Court noted that although appeals against TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. and PC Jeweller Limited are pending before the Supreme Court, no stay has been granted on the operation of these judgments. The Court also referred to several other writ petitions (Mala Petrochemicals and Polymers, Mehak Jagga, and All India Kataria Education Society) where similar petitions were dismissed by relying on TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the submissions of the petitioner were not accepted.
The High Court has not decided any substantive issues of the appeal in this order. The order primarily deals with procedural matters. The Court has condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue and has issued notice to the Assessee. Directions have been given for the parties to file written submissions and relevant judgments before the next hearing. Therefore, there is no finding on any issue, no reasoning provided, and no ratio decidendi established. No operative directions regarding the merits of the case have been issued, and no issues have been left undecided as the substantive hearing has not yet commenced.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. The court also granted permission for the parties to file written synopses and relevant documents before the next hearing.
The High Court held that in the given facts, the proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 17.03.2023 needed to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the notices were not received, and that the email address used by the revenue was that of an employee, not the company's registered email for current communications. This was considered a violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court set aside the show-cause notice dated 17.03.2023, the order dated 17.04.2023 under section 148A(d), the reassessment notice dated 17.04.2023 under section 148, the ex-parte best judgment assessment order dated 13.05.2025 under sections 147/144, the notice of demand dated 13.05.2025 under section 156, and the penalty notices dated 13.05.2025. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the notice dated 17.03.2023 within six weeks, and the AO was to proceed in accordance with law thereafter. All contentions of the petitioner on facts and law were left open to be canvassed before the AO. The court emphasized that this order was passed in the specific facts of the case.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its earlier decision to dismiss another appeal against the same impugned order. The court found no reason for this appeal to have a different outcome.
The Delhi High Court has condoned the delay of 598 days in re-filing and 12 days in filing the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi. The Court has issued notice in the appeal. As a procedural step, the parties have been directed to file all documents that were available before the ITAT within a period of six weeks. Furthermore, the counsel for both the Assessee and the Revenue are mandated to submit their written submissions, along with the judgments they intend to rely upon. The appeal has been re-notified for March 17, 2026. No decision on the merits of the appeal has been made at this stage.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the ITAT's decision. The court found no substantial question of law and followed previous judgments, including a Supreme Court ruling on the assessee's activities.
The ITAT held that the APA, entered into with the CBDT, should have guidance value for the disputed assessment year as there was no change in the taxpayer's Functions Performed, Assets Employed, and Risks (FAR). The High Court concurred with this view.
The High Court has not yet adjudicated on the substantive issues of the appeal. The only decision made in this order is to condone the 10-day delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. The court has also issued notice to the respondent, indicating that the appeal will proceed. The Revenue's counsel has informed the court that the issue in this appeal is identical to those in two other appeals (ITA 338/2025 and ITA 389/2025) where notice has already been issued. This suggests that the High Court may consider the arguments and precedents from those cases when deciding this appeal. No finding has been reached on the merits of the case, and no operative directions have been issued beyond issuing notice.
The Delhi High Court took on record the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The respondents, the Income Tax Department, stated that in compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2019), all demand notices, assessment orders, penalty orders, and show cause notices issued against M/s USTPL may be treated as withdrawn. In view of this submission by the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed that the prayers made in the writ petition were answered and the matter could be disposed of. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition as having become infructuous. No specific finding was made on the merits of the assessment or the validity of the notices, as the matter was resolved based on the revenue's submission to withdraw the proceedings.
The High Court condoned the delays in filing and re-filing the appeals by the Revenue in ITA 423/2025 and ITA 424/2025. The exemption applications were allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The Court did not delve into the merits of the appeals themselves, as the matter was adjourned for further hearing. The reasoning for condoning the delay is stated to be based on the reasons provided in the applications filed by the Revenue. The operative direction was to condone the delays and dispose of the applications, and to re-notify the appeals for hearing.
The High Court, in its order dated September 16, 2025, allowed the exemption applications and condoned the delays in filing and re-filing the appeals by the Revenue. The Court found the reasons stated in the applications for condonation to be sufficient. The substantive issues of the appeals were not decided. The matter was adjourned to September 23, 2025, at the request of the Assessee's counsel, who sought time to file certain judgments. Therefore, no finding has been reached on the merits of the appeals, and no operative directions regarding the tax dispute itself were issued.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were covered by previous judgments of the same court, including those in the assessee's own case.
The High Court held that the appeal should be closed on the ground of Low Tax Effect. The reasoning provided is that the Revenue itself sought the closure of the appeal on this specific ground. Consequently, the High Court ordered accordingly. The operative direction is the closure of the appeal. No specific tax effect threshold was mentioned in the order. The judgment does not discuss any substantive issues related to the income tax assessment of the assessee.
The High Court dismissed the appeals. However, liberty was granted to the appellant (Income Tax Department) to revive the appeals if they manage to identify and implead the legal heirs of the deceased respondent.
The High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that at the stage of Section 148A, the Assessing Officer (AO) is merely required to form a view whether there are reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The information available with the respondent, derived from a search and seizure operation on MLBEs in the insurance sector, indicated that entities like the petitioner might have been involved in transactions where payments were masked as legitimate business expenses but were effectively passed-through commissions. The Court found that the respondent had a basis to question the transaction involving Rs. 82,25,822/- from IFTGI, as it was identified as a potential pass-through transaction. The petitioner's contention that the amount was declared and taxed was an issue of fact that needed to be investigated during the reassessment proceedings, not by the High Court at this stage. The Court distinguished the case of Jindal Saw Limited, stating that in that case, the notice was based on undeclared/unexplained income, and the impugned order was at variance with the notice, which was not the situation here. The Court concluded that the initiation of reassessment proceedings could not be faulted as it was based on information under the Risk Management Strategy and the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond. The Court stated that the exercise of determining if the sum was a result of a spurious transaction leading to escaped income would be undertaken by the AO.
The Delhi High Court ordered that the appeal be closed on the ground of Low Tax Effect, as stated by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the underlying tax dispute. The reasoning provided is solely based on the appellant's submission regarding Low Tax Effect. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be closed if the appellant themselves request it on the ground of Low Tax Effect. No specific operative directions were issued other than closing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the alleged incriminating documents did not pertain to the Assessment Years under consideration. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was unsustainable in law.
The Tribunal held that the seized documents did not relate to the assessment years in question, making the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C unsustainable. The High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's order.
The Delhi High Court set aside the order dated 26.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) and the notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148. The Court directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to reconsider the reply filed by the petitioner. The AO is to pass a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. The Court noted that the proceedings for AY 2018-19 and AY 2020-21 were dropped and that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The Court found it appropriate to allow the AO to re-examine the petitioner's submissions and pass a fresh, reasoned order. Parties are to proceed in accordance with law after the AO passes the order. The issue regarding the validity of Section 148(3) of the Act, as challenged by the petitioner, was not expressly decided as the petition was disposed of on the procedural ground of reconsideration.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the assessee. The review petition against that judgment was also dismissed.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's appeals against the ITAT's decision on limitation were dismissed. Therefore, the present appeals were rendered academic and were closed with liberty to revive.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue of taxing ALV of unsold stock-in-trade under 'income from house property' is concluded in favour of the Revenue by its own earlier decision in the assessee's case. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating it would follow the fate of a previously dismissed appeal for an earlier assessment year. No perversity was found in the ITAT's findings regarding comparables.
The High Court condoned the delay of 1140 days in re-filing the appeal, accepting the reasons provided by the Revenue in their application. The court found the reasons sufficient to grant the condonation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was disposed of. The appeal itself was then ordered to be closed, as stated by the Revenue's counsel, due to the tax effect being Rs. 1,26,95,023/-. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive tax appeal, as the order primarily dealt with the procedural aspect of delay condonation and the subsequent closure of the appeal.
The Delhi High Court held that there was an infirmity in the order dated June 28, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. A perusal of the order revealed that while it referred to the petitioner's replies dated April 15, 2025, and June 24, 2025, it did not mention or consider the reply dated June 28, 2025. This omission indicated that the reply dated June 28, 2025, was not taken into account by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated June 28, 2025, passed under Section 148A(3) and the notice dated June 28, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order after considering all the replies filed by the petitioner, including those dated April 15, 2025, June 24, 2025, and June 28, 2025. This fresh order was to be passed within six weeks from the date of the judgment. The parties were directed to proceed in accordance with law once the fresh order was passed.
The High Court noted the revenue's submission that no decision had been taken to invoke Section 159 against the legal heir. Consequently, the appeal was treated as closed.