Loading High Court cases…
955 orders · Page 8 of 20
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 of Delhi has condoned the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue, citing the reasons provided in the application. Exemption has also been granted to the Revenue, subject to all just exceptions. The Court has issued notice to the Assessee, Metro Tyres Ltd., to appear on September 4, 2025. The substantive issues of the appeal, which would have been decided by the ITAT and are now being challenged by the Revenue, have not been addressed in this order. The Court has not made any findings on the merits of the case, nor has it provided any reasoning for the eventual decision on the appeal itself.
The High Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the ITAT's order. The Court has primarily dealt with the procedural aspects of the appeal. Firstly, it has condoned the delay of 44 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue, accepting the reasons provided in the application. Secondly, it has allowed the exemption application, subject to all just exceptions. The substantive part of the judgment involves issuing notice to the respondent (assessee) through all permissible modes, returnable on 10.11.2025. This indicates that the appeal is admitted for further hearing on its merits. No finding has been made on any specific issue decided by the ITAT, nor has any ratio decidendi been established regarding the substantive tax dispute.
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned notices and orders. The Court relied on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 INSC 754). Specifically, paragraph 19(f) of that decision recorded the Revenue's concession that for Assessment Year 2015-16, 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 (TOLA). The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5177/2025), where the Supreme Court allowed an appeal based on the same concession made in the Rajeev Bansal case. The High Court noted that the issue was also covered in favour of the petitioner by its own decision in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1892-DB). Consequently, the notice dated 27.04.2021 under Section 148, notice dated 27.05.2022 under Section 148A(b), order dated 28.07.2022 under Section 148A(d), and notice dated 28.07.2022 under Section 148 were set aside.
The High Court dismissed the current appeal for parity of reasons with a previous dismissed appeal. The ITAT's decision that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when no exempt income is earned was upheld.
The High Court has not made any decision on the merits of the appeals. The only action taken by the Court in this excerpt is to allow the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeals. The Court has also re-notified the matters for a future date, July 29, 2025. Therefore, there is no finding on any substantive issue, no reasoning provided, and no ratio decidendi established in this particular judgment excerpt. No operative directions have been issued regarding the substantive dispute, and no issues have been left undecided as the appeals have not yet been heard on their merits.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal for parity of reasons with a previous dismissal. The ITAT had held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made when no exempt income was earned.
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court reasoned that the appellant explicitly sought to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefits of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The application was allowed, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The next date of hearing was cancelled, and the application was disposed of. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were decided on merits.
The Tribunal has not decided any substantive issues in this excerpt. The order pertains to procedural matters, specifically the condonation of delay in filing the appeals by the Revenue. The applications for condonation of delay were allowed, and the appeals were re-notified for a future hearing date. No findings on merits, reasoning, or operative directions regarding the substantive dispute have been provided in this text.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case involving the same assessee. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The Delhi High Court held that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision and no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court acknowledged the appellant's submission regarding the Section 143(2) notice and the Revenue's stance. The court decided to seek further instructions from the Department on whether the notice was issued.
The Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case and previous High Court orders for earlier assessment years.
The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 148A(b), the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), the impugned assessment order dated 19.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and the impugned notice dated 19.05.2023 issued under Section 156 are bad in law as they are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by The Finance Act, 2021. The Court relied on its own decision in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr., which in turn followed the concession made by the Revenue in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. The Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 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 Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.07.2022 (referred to in para 13, though the date in para 1 and 2 is 02.06.2022) and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. The petition was allowed.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the Revenue did not contest the applicability of the judgment in Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal, which was followed in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. In Rajeev Bansal, the Revenue had conceded that for Assessment Year 2015-16, 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. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors., which allowed appeals based on this concession. Consequently, the impugned notice dated May 26, 2022, and the impugned order dated July 25, 2022, were set aside, and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were also quashed. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notice and order and all consequential proceedings.
The High Court found that the appellant's reasons for the delay, specifically misplacing the file due to office reshuffle, did not constitute sufficient cause. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected.
The Delhi High Court held that the tax effect involved in the present appeal was below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024. The Court also noted that the case was not covered by any of the exceptions set out in the circular. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order.
The ITAT correctly held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The High Court found no infirmity in the ITAT's order, as it followed binding jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The High Court held that the impugned notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were unsustainable. The Court found that the documents seized did not constitute any material or contain any information that had a bearing on the income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The Court emphasized that a plain reading of Section 153C(1) of the Act clearly indicates that a notice can be issued only if the AO is satisfied that the books, documents, or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the other person. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the AO did not need to be satisfied about the bearing of the information on the assessee's income if the information related to the assessee, stating this was contrary to the plain language of the provision. Consequently, the impugned notices were set aside.
The High Court held that the training provided by the appellant to GIPL's employees for using its e-platform did not constitute 'make available' of technical know-how. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS under the India-UK DTAA.
The High Court of Delhi held that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect. The Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024 and is not covered by any exceptions. Consequently, the appeal was not pressed on merits and was disposed of on this preliminary ground. No decision was made on the substantive issues that might have been raised before the ITAT.
The ITAT correctly held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. The High Court found no infirmity in the ITAT's order, as it followed binding jurisdictional High Court decisions.
The High Court held that the training provided by the appellant to GIPL's employees for using its e-platform did not constitute 'make available' of technical know-how. Therefore, the receipts were not taxable as FTS under the India-UK DTAA.
The High Court of Delhi considered the submission made by the Revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary threshold prescribed by Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Court accepted this submission. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeal on the grounds of low tax effect. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground related to the tax effect. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The Delhi High Court, on prima facie consideration, found the stand and approach of the Assessing Officer (AO) in withholding the refund of Rs. 81,02,30,379/-, despite the amount being found refundable and a prior court order, to be highly arbitrary. The Court did not delve into the merits of the tax demand for AY 2021-22 or the undertaking given before the ITAT in this specific order. The primary focus was on the non-compliance with the earlier court directive. The Court directed that the incumbent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Delhi, shall appear in person on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons for the non-compliance. The case was listed for further hearing.
The High Court of Delhi has issued notice in both appeals. The learned counsel for the respondent (Assessee) has accepted notice. The matters have been listed for further hearing on September 16, 2025. No substantive decision on the merits of the appeals has been made at this stage. The court has also allowed an exemption application in CM APPL. 40206/2025 in ITA 219/2025, disposing of the application subject to just exceptions.
The High Court allowed the appellant's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's participation in and eligibility for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, evidenced by the issuance of Form 2. The Court clarified that the appellant retains the liberty to revive the appeal if the dispute remains unsettled and a certificate under Form 5 is not issued. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of M/s Oxygen Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.
The Tribunal held that the amount received pursuant to the arbitral award was business income arising from contractual obligations. Since the assessee had no PE in India, it was not taxable in India as per Article 7 of the India-Japan DTAA.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024. Furthermore, the Revenue stated that the appeal was not covered by any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. Based on this submission, the High Court found the appeal to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had allowed the assessee's appeals for AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22 by following its earlier decision concerning a preceding AY. This prior decision had also been upheld by the High Court. The Revenue's counsel indicated that the basis for the addition by the Assessing Officer was the artificial splitting of a contract for supply and installation to facilitate overseas supply. The Revenue sought to verify if this issue was also raised for AY 2019-20. The Court, at the request of the Revenue's counsel, listed the matter for further hearing on July 9, 2025, to examine this aspect. No final decision on the merits of the ITAT's order was rendered in this proceeding; the matter was adjourned for further consideration.
The High Court condoned the delay in refiling and filing the appeal by the Revenue for Assessment Year 2017-18, based on the reasons stated in the applications. The Court noted that an identical appeal, ITA No. 193/2025, for the same assessment year is already scheduled for hearing on October 6, 2025. Consequently, the Court issued notice on the present appeal, returnable on October 6, 2025, and directed that it be listed along with ITA No. 193/2025. No decision on the merits of the substantive issues of the appeal has been made at this stage. The operative direction is to list the matter for further hearing.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that the final assessment order had not been passed pursuant to the ITAT's order dated 20.07.2012. It was held that the time for passing an assessment order had elapsed, and therefore, any further proceedings before the AO in respect of AY 2007-08 pursuant to the ITAT's order would be barred by limitation. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Nokia India (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the Court directed that the return be accepted, and the refund claimed by the petitioner, along with further payments made, be refunded with statutory interest. The AO was directed to refund the amounts due to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks.
The High Court has not decided the substantive issues of the appeal on merits. Instead, it has noted that the present appeal is related to a Miscellaneous Application filed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which is yet to be listed for hearing. Consequently, the High Court has adjourned the matter to 25.11.2025, indicating that it will await the listing and potential hearing of the Miscellaneous Application before the ITAT. No findings or reasoning on the merits of the appeal have been provided, and no operative directions have been issued other than adjourning the case. The specific amount in dispute and the assessment year(s) are not recorded in this order.
The High Court has condoned the delay in filing the appeals and has issued notice. The appeals have been listed for hearing along with the quantum appeals, as their outcome may influence the present penalty appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged its initial onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documents, and the investors confirmed their investments. The High Court found no substantial question of law as the issue was primarily one of fact.
The High Court held that the impugned notice and order are set aside. Firstly, the Court found merit in the Assessee's contention that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. It reasoned that in terms of Section 149(1)(a) of the Act, the AO was proscribed from issuing a notice after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, making 31.03.2023 the last date. Considering the provisos to Section 149(1) which exclude the time allowed for the Assessee to respond and extend the time for the AO to pass an order under Section 148A(d) by seven days if the remaining time is less, the period for passing the order expired on 27.04.2023. Therefore, the notice issued on 28.04.2023 was beyond the limitation period. This issue was covered by the Court's decision in Raminder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 52(1) New Delhi. Secondly, the Court noted that the AO had decided it was not a fit case for issuing a notice under Section 148 but subsequently revised this decision, apparently on the basis of an approval from the specified authority, implying a review of the earlier order, which the Assessee argued the AO lacked the power to do. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned order and notice.
The High Court held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while the regular assessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 were still pending and had not been concluded, was without jurisdiction. The Court found no provision in the Act that would allow the AO to reopen an assessment under such circumstances. Consequently, the impugned assessment order, which was a culmination of these erroneously initiated proceedings, was liable to be set aside. The Court also noted that the core issues sought to be raised had been conclusively settled in favour of the Petitioner by previous decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, which had dealt with the taxability of CRM receipts as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or royalty under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned assessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation, including bank details and financial statements of the investor companies. The Tribunal also noted that the investors confirmed their investments and there was no allegation that the capital receipts were the assessee's own money.
The High Court of Delhi decided that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024. Furthermore, the appeal is not covered by any of the exceptions outlined in the said circular. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, and not falling under any exceptions, are to be dismissed by the High Court. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the appeal. The ITAT's order itself was not adjudicated upon its merits.
The High Court agreed with the counsels that complete inquiries were not conducted. Consequently, the court set aside the ITAT order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Delhi High Court held that the present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the tax effect involved is below the threshold limit of ₹2,00,00,000/- as stipulated in the Circular dated 17.09.2024 and is not covered by any exceptions. Based on this submission by the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal has not made any substantive decision on the merits of the appeal in this interim order. The only action taken is the allowance of the Revenue's application for exemption (CM APPL. 38217/2025), subject to all just exceptions. The appeal itself (ITA 194/2025) has been listed for further hearing on July 4, 2025. No findings on any issues, reasoning, or ratio decidendi have been provided. No operative directions have been issued concerning the appeal's substance, and no issues have been left undecided as the appeal has not yet been adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the agreement to sell was prior to the circle rate increase and stamp duty was paid on the date of the agreement. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be sustained. The primary reason for this decision was that the AO's order had travelled beyond the scope of the notice issued under Section 148A(b). The notice had indicated that income had escaped assessment based on alleged foreign remittances of ₹6,50,84,454/-, whereas the impugned order concluded that unexplained foreign remittances amounted to ₹11,37,67,029/-. The Court found this discrepancy significant and sufficient to invalidate the order. The Court noted that while there was also a question regarding the credibility of the information provided in the Section 148A(b) notice, given the petitioner's confirmation from J&K Bank, it was not necessary to delve into those issues. The Court set aside the impugned order and clarified that the AO was not precluded from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the law if credible information suggesting escaped assessment was available. The petition was disposed of on these terms.
The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the agreement to sell was prior to the circle rate increase and stamp duty was paid on the date of the agreement. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arose.
The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reasons recorded by the AO did not establish the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. The tribunal also noted that the material relied upon by the AO was not confronted to the assessee.
The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reasons recorded by the AO did not establish the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. The tribunal also noted that the material relied upon by the AO was not confronted to the assessee.