Loading High Court cases…
955 orders · Page 7 of 20
The High Court has condoned the delay of 45 days in filing and 494 days in re-filing the appeal. The applications for condonation of delay have been disposed of. The Court has issued notice to the respondent (assessee). Both parties have been directed to file their written submissions along with judgments they intend to rely upon within two weeks. The matter has been re-notified for hearing on 08.09.2025. The High Court has not decided the substantive issues of the appeal on merits; it has only permitted the appeal to proceed by condoning the delays.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in previous proceedings, including by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The ITAT correctly upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 153C, as the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. The amendment to Section 153C was prospective and did not apply to the assessment year in question.
The High Court has not made any substantive decision on the merits of the case in this order. It has only taken procedural steps to facilitate the hearing of the appeal. The court has issued notice to the respondent, who has accepted it. Both parties are directed to file written synopses within six weeks, detailing chronological events, documents, and relevant case law. The case has been adjourned to 28.01.2026 for further proceedings. No findings on any substantive issues have been made, and therefore, no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this order. No operative directions beyond procedural steps have been issued.
The High Court of Delhi, in its order dated August 13, 2025, has condoned the delay of 640 days in re-filing and 53 days in filing the appeal. The court found the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of delay to be sufficient. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay stand disposed of. The court has issued notice to the respondent, who has accepted it and requested time to file a counter affidavit. The court has directed the filing of the counter affidavit within four weeks and a rejoinder within the subsequent four weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 19, 2026. No decision on the merits of the appeal has been made at this stage, as the proceedings are at the initial procedural stage of admitting the appeal.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the Revenue did not contest the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693), which was followed by this Court in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr. W.P.(C) 1261/2023. In the Rajeev Bansal case, the Revenue had conceded that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), the notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148, and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were set aside. The Court also referred to its own decision in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:1892-DB, which covered the controversy in favour of the petitioner. The petition was disposed of as allowed.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. The court held that payments for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements are not royalty income taxable in India.
The High Court of Delhi has issued notice in the appeal filed by the assessee, Rajasthan Prime Steel Processing Center Private Limited. The Revenue has accepted the notice. The Court has directed that the appeal be listed for hearing on September 9, 2025. This listing is coordinated with a related matter concerning the same assessee for the assessment year 2016-17, which is also scheduled for that date. No decision on the merits of the appeal has been made at this stage. The Court has also allowed an exemption application, subject to all just exceptions, and disposed of it.
The High Court held that the ITAT did not err in affirming the CIT(A)'s order as it was based on cogent reasons and facts on record. The court found that the issue was a pure question of fact and the findings were not perverse.
The Delhi High Court, in its order dated August 12, 2025, has not decided any substantive issues on the merits of the appeals. The Court has allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Notice has been issued to the respondents, who have accepted it. The appeals have been renotified for January 8, 2025. No findings have been made, no reasoning has been provided, and no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this interim order. The operative direction is to renotify the matter for further proceedings.
The High Court has not decided any substantive issues in this order. The order primarily deals with procedural matters. The Court has allowed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Notice has been issued to the respondents, and the matters have been adjourned for further hearing. No findings on the merits of the case or the dispute amount have been recorded.
The ITAT had previously held that ITOCHU India and other agents did not constitute a dependent agent PE of the appellant. The High Court is now considering this issue.
The Tribunal held that payments for the resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements do not constitute royalty for the use of copyright. Consequently, such income is not taxable in India, and no TDS was liable to be deducted.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (SLP (Diary no. 56889/2024) decided on 24.02.2025) had adopted a similar procedure. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to submit the chart filed in the Court to the Assessing Officer on a date and time to be communicated by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks as an outer limit. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the notices and order but remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The High Court has not decided the substantive appeal. Instead, it has addressed the procedural aspect of the delay. The Court has allowed the application for exemption, subject to all just exceptions, disposing of CM APPL. 49028/2025. Regarding the appeal itself (ITA 290/2025) and the application for condonation of delay (CM APPL. 49029/2025), the Court has issued notice to the respondent, M/s IREO Private Ltd., through all permissible modes. The matter has been adjourned to 08.01.2026 for further hearing. No decision has been made on the merits of the appeal or the condonation of delay at this stage.
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent, indicating that the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the ITAT's order would be heard. The court acknowledged the arguments presented by the Revenue regarding the scope of limited scrutiny and the assessment of rent.
The High Court condoned the delay of 30 days in filing and 194 days in refilling the appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Delhi. The court found the reasons stated in the applications for condonation to be sufficient. Accordingly, the applications seeking condonation of delay were disposed of as allowed. The appeal itself has been admitted and listed for further hearing on 15.10.2025. The court has not decided on the merits of the appeal at this stage, only on the procedural aspect of delay condonation. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the focus was on the delay.
The Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) were clearly barred by limitation. The Court noted that the Assessment Year in question was 2016-17. According to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year expired on March 31, 2023. Since the notice was issued on April 16, 2024, it was issued after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. The Court relied on its own judgment in Manju Somani and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the applicability of time limits for reopening assessments. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice and order. The petition was disposed of as allowed, and pending applications were dismissed as infructuous.
The High Court has condoned the delay of 319 days in filing the appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1. The Court has also directed both the appellant and the respondent to file their written submissions, along with the judgments they intend to rely upon, within a period of two weeks. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 11, 2025. No decision on the substantive issues of the appeal has been made at this stage.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals and issued notice to the assessee, who accepted it. Both parties agreed to file written synopses within six weeks.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals and issued notice to the assessee. The parties agreed to file written synopsis within six weeks and the matters were renotified.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for services and not rent for premises, thus falling under Section 194C. The High Court found no infirmity in this reasoning and agreed that CAM charges cannot be construed as rent.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for services and not rent for premises, thus falling under Section 194C. The High Court found no infirmity in this reasoning and agreed that CAM charges cannot be construed as rent.
The Delhi High Court has not yet decided the substantive issue of whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the assessment order with a DIN. The Court has only addressed the procedural aspect of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Revenue's counsel presented their argument regarding the DIN and the pendency of similar matters. The Court, noting these submissions, has adjourned the hearing to November 17, 2025, to allow for further consideration, particularly in light of the pending cases before higher courts. No finding has been made on the merits of the appeal, and no operative directions have been issued beyond adjourning the matter. The issue of whether the ITAT's order was correct remains undecided.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for services and not rent for premises, thus falling under Section 194C. The High Court found no infirmity in this reasoning and agreed that CAM charges cannot be construed as rent.
The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for services and not rent for premises, thus falling under Section 194C. The High Court found no infirmity in this reasoning and agreed that CAM charges cannot be construed as rent.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer, which held that any reassessment sought to be commenced post 01.04.2021 must comply with the time limits prescribed by Section 149(1)(b) as it stood prior to the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court noted that Section 149(1)(b), as it existed before the amendment, stipulated a maximum period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing a notice under Section 148. For Assessment Year 2014-15, this six-year period expired on 31.03.2023. Since the impugned notice and order were dated 31.08.2024, they were issued beyond this permissible time limit. The Court found that the respondents did not provide any alternative statutory provision to extend the time limit and that the judgment in Manju Somani had attained finality. Consequently, the impugned notice and order were set aside.
The High Court held that the order passed under Section 148A(3) dated June 30, 2025, and the notice issued under Section 148 dated June 30, 2025, were set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider the reply dated April 15, 2025, which was filed in response to the show cause notice issued on March 30, 2025, under Section 148A(1). Following this consideration, the Assessing Officer was to pass an order to proceed in accordance with the law. This exercise was to be completed within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition and the accompanying application were disposed of in terms of this direction.
The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated August 31, 2024, issued for Assessment Year 2015-16, was barred by limitation. The Court relied on its previous judgments in KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi, Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others, and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. These judgments established that the period of limitation, particularly the ten-year period stipulated under Section 149 read with Section 153C of the Act, had expired. The Court noted that the notice fell beyond the six-year period and, consequently, beyond the ten-year period as well. Therefore, the impugned notice was set aside, and the respondents were restrained from proceeding with the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16. The petition was allowed on these terms.
The Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, dated 31.08.2024, was barred by limitation. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Manju Somani v. ITO and ARN Infrastructures India Limited V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors., which examined the working of the First Proviso to Section 149(1). The Court noted that the assessment year was 2015-16 and the notice was issued on 31.08.2024. The Court found that the observations in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the ARN judgment were applicable, confirming that the impugned order and notice could not have been passed/issued. Since the revenue did not contest this position, the Court set aside the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148. The writ petition was allowed.
The Delhi High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Gaurav Gupta. He stated that the order passed by the ITAT on March 19, 2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, has been uploaded and a copy has been received by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue assured the Court that the said order would be implemented within one month from the date of the hearing. Based on this assurance from the Revenue, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition be treated as disposed of. The Court accordingly ordered the petition to be disposed of. No specific finding on the merits of the ITAT's order was made by the High Court, as the matter was resolved based on the Revenue's undertaking.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notice dated August 31, 2024. The Court found that the notice, in respect of Assessment Year 2015-2016 (though the petition mentions AY 2014-15, the operative part refers to 2015-2016, likely a typographical error in the judgment's conclusion or a misstatement in the facts presented to the court), falls beyond the period of six years as stipulated under Section 149 read with Section 153C of the Act. The Court relied on its previous judgments in KAD Housing Private Limited, Dinesh Jindal, and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. These judgments established that the period for reassessment, particularly in cases related to searches and governed by the First Proviso to Section 149, must be reckoned from specific dates (like the date of receipt of books of accounts by the AO) and not solely from the date of search. The reasoning emphasizes that the computation of the six or ten-year block periods requires careful consideration of the relevant assessment year and the commencement date as per the statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements. The Court restrained the respondents from proceeding with reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-2016. The issue regarding the constitutional validity of Explanation 2 to Section 148 was not explicitly decided as the petition was allowed on limitation grounds.
The High Court has decided the procedural matter of the delay in refiling the appeal. It has condoned the delay of 360 days for the appellant, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, New Delhi, for reasons stated in the application. This decision allows the appeal to proceed. The court has also issued notice to the respondent, Deepak Agarwal, returnable on December 15, 2025, indicating that the substantive issues of the appeal are yet to be heard. No findings on the merits of the appeal have been made at this stage. The ratio decidendi, at this juncture, pertains to the condonation of delay in filing appeals before the High Court under the Income Tax Act.
The High Court has not made any decision on the merits of the appeal. The Court has only addressed procedural matters. The application for exemption filed by the Revenue has been allowed. Notice has been issued to the respondent (assessee) for a future date. Therefore, no finding on any substantive issue has been reached, and no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this order. The operative direction is to issue notice and list the matter for further hearing.
The High Court issued notice to the respondent (Bechtel Limited) to appear and present their case. The court did not make a final decision on the merits of the appeal at this stage.
The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondent (Bechtel Limited) in the Revenue's appeal. The court will hear arguments on whether the ITAT should have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.
The Delhi High Court, following its own precedent in similar cases for the same assessee, held that no substantial questions of law arose. The court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the broader legal question remained open.
The High Court found the appellant's affidavit of income to be incorrect, noting a significant discrepancy between his declared income and his monthly expenses. The court also considered his long-standing textile business and past international travel as indicators of financial capacity.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that CAM charges are for maintenance services and not for the use of premises, and therefore cannot be construed as rent. Consequently, the TDS deduction should be under Section 194C, not Section 194-I.
The High Court held that the penalty order was indeed barred by limitation as the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer was the relevant date for calculating the six-month period under Section 275(1)(c), not the subsequent notice by the Additional CIT.
The Delhi High Court held that CAM charges are for maintenance services and not for occupying premises, thus not falling under the definition of 'rent' for Section 194-I. Consequently, they are subject to TDS under Section 194C.
The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a chart, as filed in the writ petition, before the Assessing Officer (AO) on a date and time to be communicated by the AO. The AO was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The Court's decision was influenced by a similar procedure adopted in the Supreme Court's order in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Industries Limited. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the impugned notices or the Instruction No.1, but rather facilitated a procedural resolution by remitting the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal decided that the appeals should be dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning provided is that the appellant/revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect in these appeals is less than Rs. 2 crores, as evidenced by an affidavit. Based on this submission, the revenue explicitly stated it would not press the appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, when not pressed by the revenue, will be dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 30.06.2022 was admittedly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following the concession made by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 INSC 754), where it was stated that TOLA was not applicable for reopening assessments for AY 2015-16, and that all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. The Court also noted that the Revenue did not dispute the applicability of the Rajeev Bansal judgment as followed by this Court in Makemytrip India Private Limited. Therefore, the impugned notice and proceedings emanating from it were set aside. The petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the impugned notice dated 22.07.2022 was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted the concession made by the Revenue in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46 (SC) 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, the Court found that the impugned notice was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the Supreme Court's observation that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA. The Court also referred to its own decisions in Makemytrip India Private Limited vs DCIT and Ibibo Group Private Limited v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10-1, & Anr., which followed the same principle. The Special Leave Petition arising from a similar decision by the Rajasthan High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned notice and all proceedings emanating from it were set aside.
The Delhi High Court held that since an assessment order had been passed, the petitioner's remedy lay before the CIT Appeals. The Court clarified that the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting the writ petition before the High Court, from its filing on 12.05.2025 until the date of the order, would be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period before the appellate authority, in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay for the period prior to the filing of the writ petition, which the appellate authority would consider in accordance with law. The petitioner was also granted liberty to urge all grounds, both on facts and in law, before the appellate authority, and these would be considered by the appellate authority. The writ petition was closed.
The High Court has admitted the appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after condoning a delay of 44 days. The Court has issued notice to the respondent (assessee) for the next hearing. The specific substantial questions of law that the appeal raises, and the findings of the ITAT on those questions, are not detailed in this order. The Court has not decided the merits of the appeal at this stage; it has only admitted the appeal for further hearing. The operative direction is to issue notice to the respondent and list the matter for further proceedings. No issue has been expressly left undecided, as the judgment is at the admission stage.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot proceed with any assessment in relation to AY 2014-15 as it is barred by limitation. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the ten-year block period under Section 153A is to be computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the search was conducted or requisition made. The Court noted that the Revenue did not dispute the tabular chart presented by the petitioner, which depicted AY 2014-15 as falling outside the ten-year block period when computed from the date of search (February 15, 2024). The Revenue's submission that they have not accepted the manner of calculation as explained in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and have filed an SLP was not sufficient to alter the present decision. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice dated March 22, 2025, issued under Section 148, was set aside. The pending application was also disposed of.
The High Court held that the notice dated 25.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15 is barred by limitation. The Court relied on its own decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the ten-year block period for computation under Section 153A is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year pertaining to the previous year in which the search was conducted. The Court noted the petitioner's tabular representation which showed AY 2014-15 as the tenth year, falling outside the permissible period when computed as per the Ojjus Medicare judgment. The revenue did not dispute the tabular chart but stated they have preferred an SLP against the Ojjus Medicare decision. Consequently, the Court found that the Assessing Officer cannot proceed with assessment for AY 2014-15. The petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was set aside.