Loading High Court cases…
544 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Bench of the ITAT had erred in dismissing the appeals on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court's judgment, which dealt with appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the present case as it did not involve a transfer of appeal by virtue of an administrative order. The High Court found that the writ petitions before it concerned the legality and propriety of the Tribunal's order rejecting appeals on territorial jurisdiction, and since the issue did not directly emanate from any assessment order, the situs of the Assessing Officer was not relevant. Instead, the situs of the Tribunal (Delhi) was the determining factor. The Court further observed that even if the Delhi Bench believed it lacked territorial jurisdiction, it should have placed the matters before the President for appropriate orders regarding transfer. The Court found the Tribunal's practice of dismissing appeals and directing fresh filings to be an overzealous attempt at case disposal that burdened the parties. Consequently, the High Court set aside all the impugned orders of the ITAT and restored the matters to the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal for decision on merits. The Court also directed that any appeals filed at the Lucknow Bench as a sequel to previous orders would remain deferred and would only be decided on merits by the Delhi Bench. Once decided by the Delhi Bench, the Lucknow Bench would close those appeals.
The High Court held that the reference to FT&TR was improper and impermissible for AY 2017-18, as the treaty with Hong Kong only allowed information relevant to fiscal years or taxable events following the agreement's effective date. Consequently, the AO could not claim the benefit of extended limitation.
The High Court held that the reference to FT&TR was improper and impermissible for AY 2017-18, as the treaty with Hong Kong only allowed information relevant to fiscal years or taxable events following the agreement's effective date. Consequently, the AO could not claim the benefit of extended limitation.
The High Court held that the issue involved was a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arose. The ITAT's affirmation of the CIT(A)'s findings was not perverse.
The High Court rejected the petitioner's application seeking to press additional grounds, stating that the petitioner could not retract from the concession made to confine the petition to the issue of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer's (JAO) jurisdiction versus the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Court noted that this specific issue had already been decided against the assessee. Consequently, following its earlier judgment in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was, however, permitted to raise all other pleas before the Assessing Officer and was given time to file objections/reply by February 10, 2025. The Faceless Assessing Officer was directed to consider these and pass an order accordingly. The pending applications were also dismissed, and the next date of hearing was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that cost allocation based on headcount ratio in transfer pricing proceedings is correct. The High Court agreed with the ITAT's view, finding it just and proper and supported by precedent.
The Tribunal held that cost allocation based on headcount is the correct method in transfer pricing proceedings. The High Court agreed, finding the ITAT's view just and proper and supported by precedent.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the PR Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The Court noted that a similar appeal, ITA No. 24/2026, filed by the Department, had been dismissed on January 16, 2026, by the same Court. The reason for dismissal in the prior case was that the matter involved a question of fact, not a substantial question of law. Consequently, following this precedent, the present appeal, along with any pending applications of identical nature, was dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the specific dispute but rather disposed of the appeal based on the nature of the question involved, as determined in the earlier similar case.
The High Court noted that the issue had been decided by its previous judgments, and the appellant's counsel could not dispute this. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Delhi High Court held that an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the name of an entity during assessment proceedings is a curable mistake under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. However, the court found that the error in this case was fundamental and not merely an inadvertent mistake, thus it could not be rectified under Section 154 or saved by Section 292B.
The High Court allowed both writ petitions and quashed the impugned notices dated March 31, 2016, and any consequential orders or proceedings. The Court held that the issuance of a fresh notice under Section 148 for the same AY 2009-10, after the completion of reassessment proceedings under Section 147/143(3), was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Court found that the petitioner had disclosed the primary facts, including the receipt of interest-free loans from RRPR, during the earlier reassessment proceedings. The auditor's report also clearly indicated these interest-free loans. Therefore, the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 149 of the Act of 1961 on the ground of failure to disclose material facts was baseless. The Court reiterated the settled position of law that an assessee is required to disclose primary facts, and it is for the Assessing Officer to draw inferences, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in New Delhi Television Ltd. v. Deputy Commission (Income Tax). The Court also noted that reassessment is not permissible merely on a change of opinion, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) vs. TechSpan India Pvt. Ltd. The Court concluded that subjecting the petitioner to reassessment proceedings for the second time for the same transaction and issue was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of constitutional rights. A token cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- per case was imposed on the respondents.
The Delhi High Court held that a fundamental error in the TPO's order, such as assessing the wrong entity, is not a curable mistake under Section 154 or saved by Section 292B of the Act. The court found no intent to assess the resultant entity.
The High Court has not decided any substantive issues in this order. The order addresses procedural matters. An application seeking exemption filed by the appellant (revenue) has been disposed of with a direction to file requisite typed copies by the next date. Furthermore, a delay of 57 days in re-filing the appeal has been condoned for the reasons stated in the application. The application for condonation of delay has also been disposed of. The High Court has issued notice to the respondent-assessee, making the appeal returnable on March 23, 2026. No finding has been reached on any of the grounds of appeal, and no operative directions have been issued beyond the procedural steps.
The High Court held that in view of the submission made by the learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the tax effect being below the limits prescribed in the relevant CBDT Circulars, the appeal is dismissed. The reasoning is based on the administrative instructions issued by the CBDT, which set monetary limits for filing appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by CBDT circulars, are to be withdrawn or dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court found that the total tax effect of the additions made by the ITAT was below the limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars No. 5/2024 and 9/2024. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeal is dismissed. This decision was based solely on the submission made by the Revenue that the tax effect in the appeal falls below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 and Circular No. 9/2024. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the underlying dispute. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, as per CBDT circulars, are to be dismissed. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court found that the total tax effect of the additions, even at the maximum rate of 40%, was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department were not maintainable on monetary grounds.
The High Court held that the issues raised by the Department were essentially findings of fact and did not involve substantial questions of law. Therefore, the Court could not examine them under its appellate jurisdiction.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning provided by the appellant's counsel was that the tax amount involved, Rs. 1,61,88,463/-, made the appeal liable for withdrawal or dismissal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 and Circular No. 9/2024. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the appeal accordingly. The applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing certified copies were also disposed of along with the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made.
The High Court agreed with the District Judge that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for not disclosing the documents earlier. The court emphasized that the focus at this stage is on the reasonable cause for non-disclosure, not the sufficiency or relevancy of the documents themselves.
The High Court admitted the appeal for hearing on the question of whether amounts transferred to blocked accounts and general reserve could be taxed as income. The other issues were not decided in this order.
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 and the certificate dated 11.09.2025 requiring 10% tax deduction. The Court found the competent officer's approach to be arbitrary and propelled by revenue considerations, side-tracking previous High Court judgments in the petitioner's own case. The Court reasoned that while an AO can take a different view in subsequent years, they must record a concrete finding regarding changes during the relevant period and how the transactions are exigible to tax. The officer failed to discharge statutory duties under Section 197 by not recording reasons and mechanically issuing the order. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 197 is to facilitate business and that authorities should adopt a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, not be guided solely by potential revenue generation. The Court directed the competent officer to issue a nil rate certificate not only for AY 2026-27 but also for subsequent years, with a caveat that this direction would not bind future authorities if they conclude, after issuing notice to the petitioner, that the petitioner has a PE in India and its transactions are taxable. The petitioner was also directed to disclose all facts truthfully in future applications and cooperate with any such notices.
The Court held that the respondent was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for a Nil Withholding Certificate. The sole basis for rejection was the existence of a virtual service permanent establishment (PE) under Article 5(k) of the India-UK DTAA. The Court reiterated its previous finding in Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT, which dealt with a similar provision in the India-Singapore DTAA (Article 5(6)). The Court reasoned that the phrase "within a Contracting State through employees or other personnel" contemplates the rendition of services by employees physically present within the contracting country, requiring a physical footprint. The concept of a "virtual service permanent establishment" is not contemplated by the DTAA or the domestic Act, and courts should not read concepts into treaty provisions that are not expressly provided. Therefore, the Revenue's contention that a virtual service PE was established was unmerited. The Court set aside the impugned certificate and order dated September 17, 2025, and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer to pass a fresh order within two weeks, considering the Court's conclusion.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 28AA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, in rejecting the petitioner's application for a 'Nil Withholding Certificate'. The court noted that Rule 28AA prescribes specific factors to be considered, including tax payable on estimated income of the previous year, tax on assessed or returned income of the last four previous years, existing tax liability, and advance tax payments. The impugned order did not reflect any computation or consideration of these mandatory factors, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO. The court relied on its previous judgments in Manpower Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. PCIT, and Lufthansa Cargo AG, which emphasized the necessity of adhering to Rule 28AA. The court found the AO's reasoning that determining tax for AY 2026-27 was premature to be insufficient to ignore the other mandatory considerations under Rule 28AA. Consequently, the impugned order and certificate were held to be untenable and liable to be quashed. The matter was remanded back to the AO to consider the application afresh in accordance with the mandate of Rule 28AA, without being influenced by the pending appeals against the ITAT orders, unless those orders are set aside or varied.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 and the consequential proceedings. The Court found that the notice issued for AY 2015-16 was clearly barred by limitation. The Court noted that the 148A(b) notice was issued on 12.08.2024, followed by a notice under Section 148A(d) on 31.08.2024. Counting 10 years backward from the date of issuance of the notice (31.08.2024), the relevant period would be AY 2016-17, not AY 2015-16. The Court reiterated the reasoning provided in the Division Bench judgments of Dinesh Jindal and Pankaj Jain, emphasizing that the facts in the present case were identical to Pankaj Jain, with only a minor, insignificant difference in the date of notice issuance. Therefore, the principle applied in Pankaj Jain was directly applicable. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.
The High Court of Delhi, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar, decided the appeal based on the submissions made. The learned counsel for the respondent (Assessee) asserted that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) conceded that they were unable to dispute this position. Consequently, the Court found no reason to proceed further with the appeal on merits. The appeal was dismissed along with all pending applications. The specific issue decided was whether the Supreme Court's ruling applied to the present case, which was affirmed by the Revenue's inability to contest it.
The High Court dismissed the appeal based on the information provided by the respondent's counsel regarding the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars 5/2024 and 9/2024. The Court granted the appellant liberty to move for revival of the appeal in case the tax effect was found to be more than Rs. 2 crores or if the case fell under any exception to the said circulars. The reasoning is primarily based on the administrative instructions issued by the CBDT concerning the monetary limits for filing appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed CBDT limits are generally not to be pursued, subject to exceptions and the possibility of revival upon specific conditions being met. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction as there was no tangible material and the assessee had offered full tax. The High Court agreed that reassessment was initiated without application of mind and was unsustainable.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition seeking to quash certain income tax orders and to direct the respondent to stay recovery proceedings for interest under Section 220(2). The court was informed that the petitioner had previously appealed against an assessment order that included an addition of Rs. 1 crore as capital expenditure. This addition was initially partly allowed by the CIT(A), but restored by the ITAT. Crucially, the petitioner's appeal to the High Court under Section 260A was allowed vide order dated 20.04.2018. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax gave effect to this appellate order, making a refund to the petitioner. In light of these developments, the High Court found that nothing remained to be adjudicated in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction as there was no tangible material and the assessee had offered full tax. The High Court agreed that reassessment was initiated without application of mind and was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the EDC was not claimed as an expenditure in the Profit and Loss account, it could not be disallowed. The disallowance was therefore erroneous.
The Tribunal followed a previous judgment which dismissed appeals on identical grounds, stating no substantial questions of law arose. The nature of income and the underlying agreements were the same as in the prior case.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following a previous judgment where it was held that no substantial questions of law arose. The nature of income and the underlying agreements remained the same.
The High Court dismissed the appeals, following its previous judgment in ITA No.76/2025. The court found no substantial questions of law arose for consideration.
The Tribunal held that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. The nature of income remained the same, and the Revenue had accepted it as business income in earlier years.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not have issued the notices relying on the Explanation to Section 14A of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2022. The Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that unless a provision explicitly states it is operational from a retrospective date, it cannot be given retrospective effect, including any explanation. The judgment in Era Infrastructure (supra) was found to be categorical on this point. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices dated April 26, 2024, and December 28, 2023, along with the corresponding reasons under Section 148A(d), were quashed and set aside. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not have issued the notices relying on the Explanation to Section 14A of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2022. The Court reiterated the settled legal proposition that unless a provision is specifically made operational from a retrospective date, it cannot be given retrospective effect. The Court found the judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) to be categorical on this point. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices dated April 26, 2024, and December 28, 2023, along with the corresponding reasons under Section 148A(d), were quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings for the relevant assessment year, the addition made by the AO was impermissible. The High Court agreed that the issue was factual and did not involve a question of law.
The Delhi High Court held that the Assessing Officer could not have issued the notices relying on the Explanation to Section 14A of the Act, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2022. The Court reiterated the settled proposition of law that unless a provision explicitly states it is operational from a retrospective date, it cannot be given retrospective effect. The Court found the judgment in Era Infrastructure (supra) to be categorical on this point. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices dated April 26, 2024, and December 28, 2023, along with the corresponding reasons under Section 148A(d), were quashed and set aside.
The Delhi High Court held that the respondent's apprehension was legally untenable. The court reasoned that merely because the department follows an ITAT order, which is binding on it, does not preclude the merits of an appeal from being heard. The ITAT's orders, as the final fact-finding authority under the Act, are required to be followed by jurisdictional assessing authorities irrespective of whether an appeal has been preferred. The court noted that only notices had been issued in the departmental appeals, no substantial question of law had been framed, and no stay application had been filed, meaning the ITAT orders remained subsisting. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned certificate requiring 15% tax deduction was quashed, and the respondent was directed to issue a fresh certificate for 2% tax deduction. This rate is to continue for subsequent AYs until the ITAT orders are reversed or modified, or there is a change in the services provided. The Assessing Officer remains free to pass assessment orders upon the petitioner filing its ITR, with the petitioner's right to appeal preserved.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi. The Court's decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the monetary limit stipulated in Circular No. 5&9/2024, issued by the CBDT. The circular provides guidelines for the institution of appeals by the Income Tax Department, and appeals falling below the specified tax effect are generally not to be pursued. The Court found this submission to be determinative of the appeal's fate. No specific finding on the merits of the original assessment or the order under challenge was made, as the dismissal was purely on procedural grounds related to the tax effect and the CBDT circular. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi. The decision was based on the submission made by the revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 5&9/2024, issued by the CBDT. The court found this submission to be valid and consequently dismissed the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, as per CBDT circulars, are to be dismissed. No specific relief was granted or denied on the merits of the case, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 16.05.2025, which mandated TDS deduction at 3.5%. The Court directed the respondents to issue a fresh certificate to the petitioner providing for TDS deduction at the rate of 1.5%, to be issued within 15 days. The reasoning was that the primary justification for the higher TDS rate for AY 2025-26 was the finding of a PE in India during AY 2022-23 proceedings. However, this finding was subsequently set aside by the ITAT on 17.10.2025. Consequently, the foundation for justifying the higher deduction rate was lost. The Court also directed that for future years, the respondents should continue issuing certificates under Section 197 at 1.5% upon application, unless the ITAT order for AY 2022-23 is set aside or modified, or new information/evidence of a PE emerges. In such cases, the respondents must issue a notice to the petitioner and elicit a response before issuing a higher rate certificate. The right of the petitioner to challenge any future higher rate certificate was reserved.
The High Court held that the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, specifically the excel sheet indicating a cash transaction, is sufficient to infer the escapement of income of the petitioner-assessee for the relevant assessment year. The Court noted that the language of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, post-April 1, 2021, does not even require the recording of a 'reason to believe,' let alone the possession of specific information or evidence. The Court stated that it is for the petitioner to satisfy the concerned authority that the basis for the notice is erroneous or that she has no nexus with the amount shown by Bhutani Infra Group and Associates. The Court concluded that the notice cannot be considered without jurisdiction or otherwise void. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioner to present her case before the respondents in accordance with law.