Loading High Court cases…
544 orders · Page 8 of 11
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in these appeals was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 and Circular No. 9/2024. The Court accepted this submission and proceeded to dismiss the appeals. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT orders. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue, where the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limits as per CBDT circulars, are liable to be dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The Delhi High Court held that the present appeals should be dismissed. The Court's reasoning was based on the submission by the Assessee's counsel that a Coordinate Bench of the same Court had already rejected an appeal by the Department on identical grounds and against the same assessee on April 17, 2025, in ITA 554/2024. The Revenue's counsel could not dispute this fact. The Court found that the issues involved in the present appeals were exactly identical to those in the previously decided appeal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed. No specific IT Act sections were discussed as the decision was based on precedent.
The High Court condoned the delay in re-filing the appeal. Following its own previous decisions in similar cases for the same assessee, the High Court rejected the present appeal.
The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law. The court will decide whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization, considering the disproportionate nature compared to earlier cash sales.
The High Court has condoned the delay of 90 days and 69 days in filing the appeals filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Delhi, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd., respectively. The applications for condonation of delay have been disposed of. The Court has directed the appellant's counsel to file a copy of the order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeals have been listed for further hearing on 23.04.2026. No decision on the merits of the appeals has been made at this stage.
The High Court condoned the delay of 90 days in filing ITA 229/2026 and 69 days in filing ITA 230/2026. The reasoning provided is that after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay was condoned. The applications for condonation of delay were disposed of. The Court has not decided the substantive issues of the appeals themselves, as it has only listed the cases for further hearing on April 23, 2026, and directed the appellant to file a copy of the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, no findings on the merits of the income tax disputes have been made at this stage.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) dated 17.12.2025. The Court found the Authority's repeated rejection of the petitioner's application, despite a previous High Court order remanding the matter and opining on the bona fide nature of the delay, to be an affront to the Court's earlier judgment. The Court reiterated that the delay of 16 days was bona fide and a trivial mistake, an error of form rather than substance, and should not lead to such an extreme decision as refusing exemption for a charitable institution. The Court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 119(2)(b), condoned the delay of 16 days, and directed that Form 10B be treated as filed along with the return. The Assessing Officer was directed to set aside the demand of Rs. 2,23,53,562/- and issue a 'NIL' demand certificate within four weeks. The Court emphasized that authorities should mitigate hardship and act objectively, not be influenced by revenue considerations. The intimation order dated 23.03.2020 and the rectified intimation order dated 24.12.2021 were also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation. The department's own concession indicated that the three-year period for AY 2017-18 expired on 30.06.2021, and the notice dated 30.07.2022 was issued after this period, even considering the TOLA extensions. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that the extended period of six years could be invoked, as the proceedings were initiated based on the three-year limitation. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the approval obtained for issuing the notice was incompetent. Section 151 of the Act stipulated that if more than three years had elapsed, approval from a higher authority (Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent) was required, whereas the approval was granted by the PCIT. Therefore, viewed from both angles – limitation and competent approval – the notice dated 30.07.2022 was void-ab-initio. Consequently, all subsequent and consequential proceedings, including the orders under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the assessment order dated 05.12.2025, and the notice of demand, were quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to initiate proceedings afresh, if permissible by law, keeping the period of limitation and the laid-down law in mind.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal and issued notice to the respondent. The Court did not provide a decision on the merits of the case in this order. The Court framed two substantial questions of law concerning the validity of the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner and the consequence of any such lapse on the assessment proceedings. The Court acknowledged the arguments presented by the Revenue regarding the approval being contrary to law and the potential annulment of assessment. However, no findings were reached on these issues, nor was any ratio decidendi established in this particular order. The operative direction was to issue notice to the respondent.
The High Court of Delhi, in view of the submission made by the Revenue that the tax effect in the instant appeal falls below the limits prescribed in CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 read with Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, dismissed the appeal. The reasoning is based solely on the administrative instructions issued by the CBDT regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the stipulated threshold are to be dismissed. No specific issue was decided on merits, and no operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the present appeal fails. This decision was based on the fact that the issue involved in the instant appeal was exactly identical to the facts relating to ITA 554/2024, where a Coordinate Bench of the same court had already rejected the Department's appeal on the same grounds. The Revenue's counsel was unable to dispute this factual submission. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in light of the prior precedent. No specific operative directions were issued as the appeal was dismissed on a preliminary ground.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeal and issued notice to the respondent. The Court framed two substantial questions of law for consideration. The first question pertains to whether the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax/Competent Authority was contrary to law. The second question, contingent on the first, asks whether any lapse identified is procedural or substantial, and if it warrants the annulment of assessment proceedings. The judgment does not record any findings on these issues as it is at the stage of admitting the appeal and issuing notice. The operative directions are limited to admitting the appeal and issuing notice to the respondent for a future hearing, along with other related appeals.
The High Court of Delhi held that in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent (assessee) that the tax effect in the instant appeal falls below the limits prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 read with Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the appeal along with any pending applications is dismissed. The reasoning is based on the established practice of the courts to dismiss appeals where the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limits, as per the CBDT circulars which set the threshold for filing appeals by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the revenue with a tax effect below the stipulated monetary limits are not to be pursued, thereby conserving judicial time and resources. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 02.03.2026. The Court found that the Competent Authority had defied the binding directions previously issued by the High Court in the petitioner's own case for the same financial year. The reasoning for the rejection, based on the department's contemplation of filing an SLP, was deemed insufficient to justify the defiance of a clear judicial order. The Court directed the Competent Authority to issue a Tax Withholding Certificate at a 'Nil' rate within three days. This short timeframe was granted because delaying the issuance beyond 31.03.2026 would render the certificate ineffective for the financial year 2025-26. The principle established is that departmental contemplation of an appeal does not permit defiance of a High Court's binding order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised were covered by previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court. The Revenue's counsel could not controvert the respondent's submissions.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeals, framing substantial questions of law regarding the validity of a common approval for multiple assessment years and whether any lapse was procedural or substantial.
The High Court admitted the appeals for hearing, indicating that substantial questions of law arise. The court will examine whether a common approval for multiple assessment years is legally valid and if any procedural lapse warrants annulment of assessment proceedings.
The High Court noted that all issues raised by the Revenue were covered by previous judgments of the same court. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeals, framing substantial questions of law regarding the validity of a common approval for different assessment years and whether any lapse is procedural or substantial. The Court issued notice to the respondent.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeals for hearing, framing substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the common approval and its procedural or substantial nature.
The High Court admitted the appeals, framing substantial questions of law regarding the validity of a common approval for different assessment years and whether any lapse is procedural or substantial. Notice was issued to the respondent.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeals for hearing. It framed substantial questions of law regarding the validity of common approval and whether any lapse was procedural or substantial.
The Delhi High Court admitted the appeals for hearing, indicating that substantial questions of law arise. The court will determine if the common approval was contrary to law and if any lapse is procedural or substantial.
The High Court held that all issues raised by the Revenue were covered by previous judgments of the same court. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Delhi High Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent (Assessee) regarding the tax effect of the appeal. The Court noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024, read in conjunction with Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Based on this submission, and in the absence of any counter-argument from the Revenue, the Court found no reason to proceed with the appeal. The principle applied is that appeals falling below the prescribed monetary limits for filing by the Revenue are to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal along with any pending applications was dismissed.
The High Court held that all issues raised by the appellant-Department were covered by prior decisions of the Court. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed.
The Tribunal rightly held that the assessee failed to substantiate the opening cash balance with cogent evidence. The explanation regarding cash withdrawals and redeposits after a significant time gap without plausible justification was also found unconvincing.
The High Court found that the ITAT's decision was based on findings of fact and appreciation of evidence, and no substantial question of law arose. The appeal lacked merit.
The High Court held that all issues raised by the Department were covered by previous judgments of the same court. These prior judgments had decided similar issues against the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity (BICIPL) is void ab initio. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding assessments made in the name of merged entities.
The High Court held that while the AO cannot proceed with issues pending before the BFAR, they can continue with other independent issues. The AO is permitted to frame an assessment order on all issues not pending before the BFAR. For issues pending before the BFAR, the AO shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after the BFAR decides them, potentially by issuing a notice under Section 148/150 of the Act if the decision is against the assessee. The court distinguished the cited judgments, noting that the issue of pending BFAR applications was not present in those cases. The court clarified that the principle laid down applies to resident assessees, and a different view might be taken for non-residents. The writ petition was dismissed, with directions for the AO to proceed with the assessment, leaving BFAR-pending issues aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity (BICIPL) is void ab initio. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding assessments made in the name of merged entities.
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order dated July 17, 2025, and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Court directed the AO to consider its conclusions and pass a reasoned and speaking order under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, within two weeks. The Court found that the petitioner's argument regarding consistency and the nature of the outstanding demands, which were subject to rectification and appeals, warranted further consideration. The rejection of the application without a detailed examination of these aspects and without providing a reasoned justification, especially in light of previous consistent orders, was deemed inappropriate. The Court noted that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, which could violate principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that an AO cannot arbitrarily deviate from a consistent past practice in issuing certificates under Section 197 without providing a reasoned justification, particularly when the underlying issues leading to outstanding demands are under dispute and subject to further proceedings.
The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion, based on the material on record, was correct and had been upheld in a previous order. The court found no substantial question of law arising.
The High Court held that the writ petition, which was primarily filed against the rejection of the stay application by the Assessing Officer, had become infructuous because the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had since been decided. The Court stated that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and saw no reason why the petitioner should not avail this remedy. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner files an appeal along with a stay application before the ITAT within four weeks, the recovery of the demand against the petitioner shall remain stayed for four weeks from the date of the order. The Court also requested the ITAT to decide the petitioner's stay application expeditiously if filed within the stipulated period. The Court made it clear that the order was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances, referencing a previous observation that if a demand appears unsustainable on the face of it, the AO ought not to reject a stay application mechanically.
The High Court held that upon passing a fresh assessment order under Section 153A for a particular year, the previous assessment order for that year becomes infructuous and merges with the subsequent order, irrespective of whether the issues were re-examined.
The Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee is entitled to benefits under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was correct. The High Court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
The High Court of Delhi held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Court's reasoning was based on the submission made by the assessee's senior counsel regarding the tax effect. The Court, after a prima facie examination, was of the view that the tax effect was below Rs. 2 crores. The Revenue's counsel was unable to counter this assertion or satisfy the Court on the tax effect. Therefore, in light of the low tax effect and the inability of the Revenue to demonstrate otherwise, the appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, as per CBDT circulars, are liable to be dismissed, especially when the Revenue cannot justify the tax effect. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court admitted the appeal, framing two substantial questions of law. The first question concerns whether the ITAT correctly applied the limitation period of six years for Assessment Year 2013-14, specifically whether the fourth proviso to Section 153A read with Explanation 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was correctly considered. The second question relates to the applicability of an extended limitation period of ten years, given that the proposed additions allegedly exceed Rs. 50 lacs. The Court has not yet decided these issues, as it has only admitted the appeal and issued notice to the respondent. The operative directions are to admit the appeal and issue notice, returnable on 28.04.2026. No finding has been reached on the merits of the case.
The High Court of Delhi condoned the delay of 21 days in re-filing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-1, New Delhi. The Court allowed the exemption application and disposed of the application for condonation of delay. The Court then listed the appeal for further hearing on a future date, April 20, 2026. The substantive issues of the appeal were not decided as the judgment only addresses the procedural aspect of delay condonation. Therefore, no finding was reached on the merits of the appeal, and the operative directions were limited to listing the case.
The High Court found that the case revolved around findings of fact and appreciation of evidence, not raising any substantial question of law. The ITAT's decision was based on the absence of incriminating material.
The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law regarding the validity of assessment proceedings when the assessee did not appear and their NRI status was unknown to the AO. It questioned whether the absence of a draft assessment order could nullify proceedings.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. The Court observed that the demand against Mr. Sunil Jain had been set aside and remanded for fresh assessment, meaning no demand currently existed against him. Consequently, the Rs. 72,34,000 seized amount was lying idle with the Department, with no provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing it to be held as advance tax or security against a likely demand. Furthermore, the Department had not challenged the ITAT's order dated December 19, 2025, which stayed the petitioner's outstanding demand. The Court found that the seizure of the petitioner's bank account would adversely affect its right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) and its right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court set aside the notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated December 1, 2025, and directed the Assessing Officer to forthwith recall or cancel the order of attachment. The appeal before the Tribunal was fixed for hearing on March 30, 2026, and no adjournment would be granted unless compelling circumstances warranted it.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS-2), Delhi, and the prior order dated 11.09.2025 by respondent no.2. The Court reasoned that the ITAT's order dated 21.11.2025, which clearly found that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source for the same assessment year and in the same factual backdrop, was a finding of fact that should have been considered by both the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority. Furthermore, previous orders for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-2020 had also held the petitioner 'not in default'. The Court emphasized that the amount levied under Section 201(1A) is a penalty, not tax on income. Consequently, the stay application was allowed, with the petitioner not required to pay any part of the demand raised by the Assessing Officer during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. The Court explicitly stated that no finding or observation on the merits of the case was made, and the Appellate Authority should independently consider all facts, law, and the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect in the appeal falls below the monetary limits stipulated by the CBDT Circulars. Specifically, the court referred to CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, as per CBDT instructions, are to be dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal and all pending applications. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the continued operation of the lookout circulars (LOCs) against the petitioners was violative of their fundamental rights. While acknowledging the revenue's right to issue LOCs, the Court noted that the income tax proceedings under the Act of 1961 had culminated, and no demand was outstanding against the petitioners. The Court observed that the references made under FT&TRD had been pending for approximately five years, and the petitioners' rights could not be suspended indefinitely due to the department's inability to elicit information from foreign countries. Consequently, the Court set aside the LOCs, subject to the petitioners furnishing an undertaking to the Court by March 15, 2026. This undertaking would require them to not alienate or create third-party rights on their assets outside India and to intimate the Income Tax Department at least thirty days in advance if they choose to do so. Failure to adhere to the undertaking would allow the respondent-Department to initiate further action, including contempt proceedings. The Court clarified that this stipulation does not restrain the petitioners from alienating or transferring their assets.
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the impugned certificate at a 10% rate for AY 2026-27 could not have been issued, given that the respondents had previously issued certificates at a 'nil' rate for AY 2024-25 and AY 2025-26, with an identical factual matrix. The Court noted that the revenue's argument regarding an outstanding demand for AY 2023-24 was irrelevant, as the tax withholding certificate for AY 2026-27 was issued on 22.07.2025, prior to the demand notice dated 11.11.2025. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision dated 19.04.2023, which upheld the Tribunal's approach in attributing 15% of total revenue to the Indian Permanent Establishment and held that this attribution was fully absorbed by remuneration paid to Indian distributors, thus attaining finality. The respondents were directed to issue a 'nil' deduction certificate under Section 197 for AY 2026-27 within fifteen days. Additional directions were given for issuing 'nil' rate certificates for subsequent years upon application, subject to the competent authority's ability to record a finding of a PE in India after issuing notice to the petitioner.
The High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that the period during which the proceedings were adjourned at the petitioner's request, from March 28, 2024, to April 13, 2024, should be excluded from the computation of the limitation period, in accordance with the fifth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. The Court found that the AO had acted within jurisdiction by granting adjournments to adhere to the principles of natural justice, and this did not amount to acting in defiance of the prescribed period of limitation. The Court noted that the petitioner had availed of these adjournments without raising any objection regarding limitation at that stage and only raised the plea in the writ proceedings. The Court distinguished the present case from Manju Somani and Shree Cement Ltd. by highlighting that in this case, proceedings under Section 148A were initiated within time, and the delay was attributable to the petitioner's requests for adjournments, making the fifth proviso applicable. The Court concluded that the impugned notices were validly issued and within limitation, and no jurisdictional error was made out. The petitions were dismissed.
The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order dated 14.02.2026 and the Tax Withholding Certificate issued under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the assurance given by the Assessing Officer that a fresh order would be passed within seven days, in accordance with the law and the court's previous directions dated 14.01.2026. The court also noted the fact that assessment orders had been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order on or before 05.03.2026. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
The High Court of Delhi, in its order dated 26.02.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1. This decision was based on the submission made by the appellant's counsel, who, on instructions, stated that the tax effect in the appeal fell below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Court accepted this submission and proceeded to dismiss the appeal without delving into the merits of the case. No specific finding was made on any substantive issue of income tax law. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.