Loading High Court cases…
955 orders · Page 6 of 20
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, in its order dated September 8, 2025, decided to close the appeal. The reasoning provided is based on the submission made by the appellant's counsel, who, on instructions, acknowledged the respondent's submission. The key factor for closing the appeal was that the tax effect was less than two crores, aligning with the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The court accepted this submission and consequently ordered the closure of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the stated grounds.
The Delhi High Court, considering the submissions of both parties, agreed with the respondent's suggestion to remand the matter. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Kapil Goel, was agreeable to the submissions made by Mr. Debesh Panda for the Revenue. Consequently, the Court remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to decide the issue of the 'surviving period' of the reassessment proceedings by taking into consideration the judgments cited by the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is to be granted an opportunity of hearing before the AO, who must pass a detailed and speaking order. This exercise is to be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.
The High Court held that the present appeal should meet the same fate as the previous covered cases. Therefore, there was no justification to entertain the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the assessee, being an LLP and not a foreign company, was not an 'eligible assessee' under Section 144C. Consequently, the provisions of Section 144C did not apply, rendering the assessment invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the appeal. The court relied on its previous decisions, including those concerning the assessee itself, which had held that the bright-line test is not a sustainable method for determining international transactions or computing arm's length price for AMP expenses.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to remand the subsidy issue was appropriate given the pending Supreme Court case. The court also upheld the ITAT's deletion of additions for after-sales expenses, finding merit in the assessee's arguments and prior High Court judgments.
The High Court held that the issue in the present appeal is covered by the majority view in a previous case involving the same assessee. Consequently, the substantial questions of law proposed by the revenue do not arise for consideration.
The High Court of Delhi has condoned the delay of 41 days in filing and 54 days in re-filing the appeal preferred by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7, Delhi. The Court found sufficient reasons for the delay, as stated in the applications filed by the Revenue. The applications for condonation of delay have been disposed of. The Court has also issued notice to the respondent, S.S. Con-Build Pvt. Ltd., for the next hearing, which is scheduled for February 10, 2026. The substantive grounds of appeal and the merits of the case are yet to be adjudicated. No decision has been made on the core tax dispute at this stage.
The High Court upheld the Commercial Court's decision to grant an interim injunction against GE. The court found GE to be a clear infringer and found no prima facie illegality in LC's trademark registrations.
The Delhi High Court held that since the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by filing an appeal and had also filed an application for stay before the Assessing Officer, urging the same grounds as presented in the writ petition, it was appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the remedies already invoked. The Court distinguished the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, relied upon by the petitioner, noting that in the present case, the petitioner had not only filed an appeal but also a stay application before the Assessing Officer. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Red Chilli International Sales v. Income-tax Officer, which dealt with the challenge to a High Court order rejecting a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Consequently, the High Court closed the writ petition, finding it appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the appellate and stay applications already filed.
The High Court held that the appeal before the ITAT was not maintainable as the order of the CIT (Exemption) rejecting condonation of delay is not an appealable order. Therefore, the ITAT lacked jurisdiction.
The High Court acknowledged the submission by the Revenue that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the Court decided to close both appeals.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's submission was primarily that the re-assessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 were time-barred, citing judgments of the Delhi High Court in Manju Somani and the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. These precedents established that re-assessment for AY 2016-17 is time-barred beyond March 31, 2023, as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The Court also referred to its own decision in Nikhil Nanda, which had set aside a Section 148 notice for AY 2016-17 on identical grounds, relying on Manju Somani and Rajeev Bansal. Crucially, the counsel for the revenue did not dispute the applicability of these judgments. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order dated August 31, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated August 31, 2024, passed under Section 148. Any subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were also quashed. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and notice.
The High Court, in this order, has condoned the delay of 166 days in re-filing and the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. The Court found the reasons stated in the applications for condonation to be sufficient. Consequently, the applications for condonation stand disposed of. The High Court also granted exemption to the Revenue, subject to all just exceptions, and disposed of that application. The appeal itself has been re-notified for a future date, indicating that the merits of the appeal have not yet been decided. No finding on the substantive issues of the appeal has been made at this stage.
The High Court has not decided any substantive issues of the appeal in this order. The Court has only addressed procedural matters. It has condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal by the Revenue and allowed the exemption application. The Court has issued notice to the respondent assessee and directed both parties to file written synopses within a specified period. The appeal has been re-notified for a future hearing. No findings on the merits of the case or the ITAT's order have been made.
The High Court has not decided any substantive issues in this order. It has only granted an exemption application and directed the appellant's counsel to furnish a copy of the appeal paperbook to the respondent's counsel. The matter has been adjourned for further proceedings. No findings on any grounds of appeal, reasoning, or ratio decidendi have been provided. No operative directions beyond the procedural ones have been issued.
The High Court held that entertainment tax collected as incentive is capital in nature, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also held that ESOP/ESPS expenses are allowable revenue expenditure and Rule 8D is prospective, not applicable for AY 2007-08.
The High Court found no merit in the appellant's submissions that the ITRs were filed inadvertently. The court upheld the Family Court's decision, noting the appellant's admission of filing the returns.
The High Court has issued notice to the respondent (Tulip Infratech Private Limited) on the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court has not made any findings on the merits of the case or the issues raised by the Revenue. The primary action taken is procedural – directing the issuance of notice to the assessee, making the appeal returnable on January 13, 2026. The Court has also allowed the Revenue's exemption application. No specific finding on any issue has been recorded, nor has any ratio been established at this stage. The operative direction is to list the matter for further hearing after the respondent files their response.
The High Court allowed the application for condonation of delay of 394 days in re-filing the appeal, subject to all just exceptions. The application for exemption was also allowed. The High Court directed that notice be issued to the respondent, returnable on January 27, 2025. The reasoning for condoning the delay is stated as 'for the reasons stated in the application'. The operative direction is to issue notice to the respondent. No specific findings on the merits of the appeal were made at this stage.
The High Court has condoned the delay of 86 days in filing the appeal and 824 days in re-filing the same. The reasoning provided is based on the reasons stated in the applications filed by the Revenue. The High Court has allowed the applications for condonation of delay. The operative direction is to issue notice to the respondent, Sh. Sandeep Hooda, through all permissible modes, returnable on December 10, 2025. No decision has been made on the merits of the appeal itself, as the proceedings are at the notice stage.
The Delhi High Court condoned the 25-day delay in filing the appeals. The court also issued notice to the respondent and granted liberty to serve the counsel who appeared before the ITAT.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue of whether the jurisdictional AO had the power to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, was settled by this Court in the case of TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO Ward 25(3) New Delhi (Neutral Citation 2024: DHC: 8330-DB). The Court noted that a coordinate bench, in WP(C) No. 13229/2024 PC Jeweller Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr, had also dismissed a similar petition by relying on the TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. judgment. Accordingly, following the precedent, the petition was dismissed. The application for stay, having become infructuous, was also dismissed. No other issues were decided.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, which was followed by this Court in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. In the latter case, it was noted that the Revenue conceded that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) was not applicable for reopening assessments for AY 2015-16. Consequently, notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for AY 2015-16 were to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. Since the impugned notice dated 27.07.2022 was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) and TOLA was not applicable for AY 2015-16, the impugned notice and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The prayers sought by the petitioner were granted.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This court upheld the ITAT's decision.
The Delhi High Court held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This decision was based on previous judgments of the High Court.
The Delhi High Court held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The Delhi High Court held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This decision was based on previous judgments of the High Court.
The Delhi High Court, following its earlier judgments and Supreme Court pronouncements, held that amendments to Section 14A of the Act are prospective from April 1, 2022. Therefore, they apply from Assessment Year 2022-23 onwards and not to the assessment year in question.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by a previous majority decision in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the substantial questions of law proposed by the Revenue did not arise for consideration.
The High Court condoned the delay of 319 days in filing the appeal and 365 days in refilling the appeal, finding the reasons stated in the applications to be satisfactory. The Court also admitted the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10. Notice was issued to the respondent, Arvi Lights, returnable on January 28, 2026. The judgment does not address the substantive merits of the appeal or the grounds on which it was filed. Therefore, no finding on the core tax dispute has been made, and no ratio decidendi regarding the tax laws can be extracted from this order. The operative direction was to issue notice to the respondent.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay of 486 days in re-filing the appeal by the Revenue, based on the reasons stated in the application. The Court acknowledged that an identical issue is pending before the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) (4) TMI 579 (Delhi High Court), which was relied upon by the ITAT. The Court also noted a previous order in ITA 404/2024 where a similar matter was listed for hearing on 31.10.2025. Consequently, the High Court re-notified the present appeal for hearing on 31.10.2025. No decision on the merits of the appeal was made.
The High Court noted that the AO, after the remand, decided the issue in favor of the assessee and the Revenue did not appeal this decision. Therefore, nothing further remained in the present appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following its earlier judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. This judgment held that amendments to Section 14A, even if stated to be for removal of doubts, would not be retrospective if they altered the existing law.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. The Court found that the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY-2013-14, was indeed beyond the period of limitation. The Court noted that the Revenue did not seriously contest the petitioner's submission regarding the limitation period and the applicability of the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice dated March 30, 2023, and all consequential reassessment proceedings, including any orders passed thereof. The petition was disposed of as allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The High Court, in turn, dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The High Court, in turn, dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the ITAT's order.
The High Court issued notice to the Revenue and sought instructions. The assessee requested the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration of the appeal.
The High Court has condoned the delay of 649 days in re-filing the appeal, finding the reasons stated in the application to be sufficient. The Court has also allowed the exemption application, subject to all just exceptions. The primary decision at this stage is procedural: the appeal has been admitted for further hearing after condoning the delay. The substantive issues of the appeal have not been addressed as the matter is at the notice stage. The operative direction is to issue notice to the respondent, MMTC Ltd., for a hearing on January 21, 2026. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the merits of the appeal are yet to be heard.
The Delhi High Court set aside the Assessment Order dated March 25, 2025. The Court accepted the submission of the revenue that the Assessing Officer (AO) was prepared to grant the petitioner one more opportunity to present their case. The AO was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner's representative, either virtually or otherwise, on a date and time to be communicated to the petitioner through E-mail and the ITBA portal. The entire process, including the hearing and subsequent order, was to be completed within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court clarified that by virtue of this order, the petitioner would be precluded from raising the plea of limitation for passing the assessment order. The petition was disposed of on these terms.
The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Family Court's order. The court disbelieved the appellant's ITR in light of his admitted higher monthly expenses.
The High Court condoned the delay in refiling the appeals. The court also issued notice and directed the parties to file written submissions.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in refiling the appeals after considering the reasons provided. The court also allowed the exemption applications.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue of whether a JAO or FAO has jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is covered by its own previous judgment in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3) New Delhi. The Court found this judgment to be binding on it unless a contrary view was taken and the matter referred to a larger bench. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had not stayed the judgment in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. and that other High Courts' judgments on identical issues were pending before the Supreme Court. Given that a similar writ petition (W.P. No. 9581/2024) was dismissed by the Delhi High Court following TKS Builders, and another (W.P. No. 13242/2024) was withdrawn on the same ground, the Court concluded that the present petitions should also follow the same result. The petitions were accordingly dismissed. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the other issues raised by the petitioners.
The Delhi High Court condoned the delay in refiling the appeals after considering the reasons provided. The court also issued notice and directed parties to file written submissions before the next hearing.
The Tribunal has not made any decision on the merits of the appeal. The order only addresses procedural matters. An application for exemption (CM APPL. 47951/2025) has been allowed subject to all just exceptions, and this application has been disposed of. The main appeal (ITA 271/2025) and other related applications have been re-notified for a future hearing on September 3, 2025. No findings on any substantive issues have been recorded, and therefore, no reasoning or ratio decidendi can be extracted from this order. No operative directions regarding the substantive appeal have been issued.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue raised in the petitions is covered by its own prior judgment in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3) New Delhi. The Court found this precedent binding on itself, as no contra view was being taken or a reference to a larger bench was being made. The Court noted that a similar writ petition (W.P. No. 9581/2024) involving an identical issue was dismissed by the same Court following the TKS Builders judgment. Furthermore, another writ petition (W.P. No. 13242/2024) was withdrawn by the petitioner as the issue was covered by the TKS Builders judgment. The Court also observed that there was no stay granted by the Supreme Court on the TKS Builders judgment. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the present petitions should follow the same result and be dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.