Loading High Court cases…
713 orders · Page 2 of 15
The High Court held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Court found that the reopening notice was issued beyond four years from the end of AY 2012-13. It was evident from the reasons recorded that all facts were already before the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment, and no fresh material was relied upon for reopening. Therefore, there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Furthermore, the Court noted that the reasons for reopening, concerning capital gains and provision for future development expenses, were issues that the Assessing Officer had already considered and decided upon during the original assessment. The reopening was based on a 'borrowed satisfaction' from the audit department, rather than a genuine belief formed by the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The Court cited *Adani Exports v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Assessments)* and *Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT* (1979) to support the principle that the belief for reopening must be the Assessing Officer's own and not based on borrowed satisfaction. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 23, 2018, under Section 148 was quashed and set aside.
The High Court decided that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit stipulated in Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the prescribed monetary limit for filing before the High Court, as per CBDT circulars, should be withdrawn or not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The court also granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal (High Court) decided that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. This circular, which prohibits filing appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable, led the appellant's counsel to not press the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the prescribed monetary limit, as per the relevant circular, are not to be pursued. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant could seek revival of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This was in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which was made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the Circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In light of Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, issued by the CBDT, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The Tribunal also granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason.
The High Court held that since the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, which provides that no appeal wherein the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which has also been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of as not pressed in light of the Circular dated 08.08.2019. The Court also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the Circular is not applicable for any reason, it would be open for the appellant to seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. The reasoning is that the Revenue itself, citing its own circular and the low tax effect, chose not to pursue the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn or not pressed by the appellant if it falls below the monetary limits prescribed by the relevant circulars, even if it is pending before the High Court. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The court also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant can seek revival of the appeal.
The Tribunal held that in light of the Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, which provides that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the appellant does not press the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed. The Tribunal also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the Circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court held that in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals, the appellant did not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the explicit statement by the appellant's counsel regarding the tax effect and the applicability of the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold specified in the CBDT circular, when made applicable retrospectively, are to be dismissed as not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed, with a liberty to the appellant to seek revival if there was any error in the tax effect computation or if the circular was not applicable for any reason.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Consequently, in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019, which prohibits filing appeals with a tax effect below this monetary limit and is applicable retrospectively, the Revenue did not press the appeal. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The judgment also notes that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal would not be pressed by the revenue. The reasoning was based on the Circular No. 17 of 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Consequently, the revenue's counsel stated that they did not press the appeal. The Tribunal accordingly disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the specified monetary limit in the relevant CBDT circulars, especially when made retrospective, should be withdrawn or not pressed by the revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The judgment also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that in light of the submission by the Revenue's learned senior standing counsel regarding the tax effect being less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and the applicability of Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the appeal was not pressed. The Court accordingly disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's own concession and the directive of the CBDT circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, as per CBDT circulars, are not to be pressed by the Revenue. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The Court also provided liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal in case of any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable.
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the notice under Section 148. The Court held that the approval dated March 16, 2005, by the Kudasan Gram Panchayat was for an office building, not a housing project. The first approval for a housing project was granted by GUDA on February 6, 2008. Therefore, for the purpose of Section 80IB(10), the relevant date of approval is February 6, 2008. The project completion date of March 31, 2012, was well within the prescribed period from this date. The Court found that the petitioner had disclosed the relevant approval dated February 6, 2008, and not submitting the earlier approval for an office building did not constitute a failure to disclose material facts. Since the reopening was sought beyond four years, and there was no failure to disclose material facts, the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 147. The Court also noted that on merits, the conditions for Section 80IB(10) were satisfied based on the first housing project approval date.
The High Court held that the appeals were not pressed by the appellant (Revenue) in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019. The circular mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and has retrospective applicability to pending appeals. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were disposed of as not pressed. The Court also provided a liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeals if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive issues of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vadodara-1) in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. This circular stipulates that no appeal shall be filed before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and it has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The reasoning was based on the appellant's own submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The Tribunal also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant could seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The revenue's counsel stated that in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019, which prohibits filing appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable, the appeal was not pressed. The appeal was accordingly disposed of as not pressed. The High Court also provided a liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal in case of any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The Tribunal noted that the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal. The Tribunal accordingly disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Tribunal also clarified that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the Circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. This decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Court took into account CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the Circular was not applicable for any other reason. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court of Gujarat, in light of the submission made by the Revenue's learned senior standing counsel regarding the tax effect being less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which provides that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. The Court granted liberty to the appellant (Revenue) to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the Circular was not applicable for any reason. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which stipulates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which has retrospective applicability to pending appeals, the appellant did not press the appeal. The ratio is that appeals below a certain monetary threshold, as per a relevant circular, may be withdrawn or not pressed. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The judgment notes that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant can seek revival of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court decided to detach Special Civil Application No. 2321 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 2323 of 2014 from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning provided is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court directed that these two special civil applications should be heard by the regular court that typically handles tax matters, rather than continuing to be heard alongside the tax appeals. The tax appeals themselves were concluded, and a separate judgment was to be delivered for them.
The High Court has decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCA No. 2321 of 2014 and SCA No. 2323 of 2014) from the main batch of tax appeals. The reason for this detachment is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's reasoning is that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court that handles tax matters. The judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised in these detached petitions. The operative direction is to list these two Special Civil Applications before the regular tax court for hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the merits of the detached petitions were not addressed in this order.
The High Court concluded the hearing of the tax appeals and ordered that they would be disposed of by a separate judgment to be delivered later. Crucially, the Court decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCAs) numbered 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014 from the main batch of matters. The reason for detaching these SCAs was that they specifically related to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court directed that these two SCAs be heard by the regular court designated for taking up tax matters. No decision was made on the merits of the tax appeals or the detached SCAs in this order.
The High Court decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCAs) from the main batch of tax appeals. The SCAs in question, SCA No. 2321 of 2014 and SCA No. 2323 of 2014, specifically pertain to the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court reasoned that these matters should be heard separately. Therefore, the court ordered that these two SCAs be detached from the current batch and be heard by the regular court designated to take up tax matters. The remaining tax appeals were to be disposed of by a separate judgment.
The High Court has decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCA No. 2321 of 2014 and SCA No. 2323 of 2014) from the main batch of tax appeals. The reason for this detachment is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's reasoning is that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court that handles tax matters. The judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised in these detached petitions. The operative direction is to list these two Special Civil Applications before the regular tax court for hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the merits of the detached petitions were not addressed in this order.
The High Court held that the two Special Civil Applications (SCAs) numbered 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014 should be detached from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning was that these SCAs specifically dealt with the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which warranted separate consideration. The court directed that these two SCAs be heard by the regular court that typically handles tax matters. The remaining tax appeals were to be disposed of by a separate judgment. No decision was made on the merits of the tax appeals or the SCAs in this order.
The High Court decided to detach Special Civil Application No. 2321 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 2323 of 2014 from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning provided is that these two petitions specifically concern the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's direction is that these two special civil applications should be heard by the regular court that typically takes up tax matters. The remaining tax appeals in the batch are to be disposed of by a separate judgment to be delivered by the High Court. No finding or decision was made on the merits of the tax appeals or the detached SCAs.
The High Court has decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCA No. 2321 of 2014 and SCA No. 2323 of 2014) from the main batch of tax appeals. The reason for this detachment is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's reasoning is that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court that handles tax matters. The judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised in these detached petitions. The operative direction is to list these two Special Civil Applications before the regular tax court for hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the merits of the detached petitions were not addressed in this order.
The High Court held that the two Special Civil Applications (SCAs) numbered 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014 should be detached from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning was that these SCAs specifically dealt with the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which warranted separate consideration. The court directed that these two SCAs be heard by the regular court that typically handles tax matters. The remaining tax appeals were to be disposed of by a separate judgment. No decision was made on the merits of the tax appeals or the SCAs in this order.
The High Court held that the two Special Civil Applications (SCAs) numbered 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014 should be detached from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning was that these SCAs specifically dealt with the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which warranted separate consideration. The court directed that these two SCAs be heard by the regular court that typically handles tax matters. The remaining tax appeals were to be disposed of by a separate judgment. No decision was made on the merits of the tax appeals or the SCAs in this order.
The High Court held that the Special Civil Applications No. 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014 should be detached from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning for this detachment was that these two petitions specifically concerned the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court decided that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court designated for taking up tax matters. The judgment does not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the tax appeals themselves, other than stating that their hearing was concluded and a separate judgment would be delivered. Therefore, no decision was made on the substantive issues of the tax appeals in this specific order.
The High Court held that the Special Civil Applications No. 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014 should be detached from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning for this detachment was that these two petitions specifically concerned the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court decided that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court designated for taking up tax matters. The judgment does not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the tax appeals themselves, other than stating that their hearing was concluded and a separate judgment would be delivered. Therefore, no decision was made on the substantive issues of the tax appeals in this specific order.
The High Court held that the Special Civil Applications No. 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014 should be detached from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning for this detachment was that these two petitions specifically concerned the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court decided that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court designated for taking up tax matters. The judgment does not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the tax appeals themselves, other than stating that their hearing was concluded and a separate judgment would be delivered. Therefore, no decision was made on the substantive issues of the tax appeals in this specific order.
The High Court has decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCA No. 2321 of 2014 and SCA No. 2323 of 2014) from the main batch of tax appeals. The reason for this detachment is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's reasoning is that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court that handles tax matters. The judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised in these detached petitions. The operative direction is to list these two Special Civil Applications before the regular tax court for hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the merits of the detached petitions were not addressed in this order.
The High Court decided to detach Special Civil Application No. 2321 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 2323 of 2014 from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning provided is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court directed that these two special civil applications should be heard by the regular court that typically handles tax matters, rather than continuing to be heard alongside the tax appeals. The tax appeals themselves were concluded, and a separate judgment was to be delivered for them.
The High Court decided to detach Special Civil Application No. 2321 of 2014 and Special Civil Application No. 2323 of 2014 from the batch of tax appeals. The reasoning provided is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court directed that these two special civil applications should be heard by the regular court that typically handles tax matters, rather than continuing to be heard alongside the tax appeals. The tax appeals themselves were concluded, and a separate judgment was to be delivered for them.
The High Court held that the tax appeals would be disposed of by a separate judgment to be delivered later. However, it decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCA Nos. 2321 of 2014 and 2323 of 2014) from the main batch of matters. The reasoning for this detachment was that these two SCAs specifically pertained to the reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court directed that these two SCAs should be heard by the regular court that typically handles tax matters. The operative direction was the detachment and separate listing of these two SCAs. No decision was made on the merits of the tax appeals or the detached SCAs in this order.
The High Court has decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCA No. 2321 of 2014 and SCA No. 2323 of 2014) from the main batch of tax appeals. The reason for this detachment is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's reasoning is that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court that handles tax matters. The judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised in these detached petitions. The operative direction is to list these two Special Civil Applications before the regular tax court for hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the merits of the detached petitions were not addressed in this order.
The High Court has decided to detach two Special Civil Applications (SCA No. 2321 of 2014 and SCA No. 2323 of 2014) from the main batch of tax appeals. The reason for this detachment is that these two petitions specifically pertain to the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's reasoning is that these matters should be heard separately by the regular court that handles tax matters. The judgment does not provide any finding or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised in these detached petitions. The operative direction is to list these two Special Civil Applications before the regular tax court for hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the merits of the detached petitions were not addressed in this order.
The High Court held that the appeal fails and is summarily dismissed. The court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's view. The Tribunal had concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) who found that the development agreement did not involve a transfer of possession of the land. Crucially, the Commissioner (Appeals) had categorically found that the land was held by the assessee as stock-in-trade. Since Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to capital assets, and the land was stock-in-trade, the provisions of Section 2(47) were irrelevant. The assessee retained ownership, and consideration was to be paid as work progressed. The assessee had correctly offered income on a year-to-year basis as sale deeds were executed. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also noted that the income offered by the assessee was more than what was specified in the development agreement. Therefore, the Tribunal did not err in concurring with these findings.
The High Court held that neither of the proposed questions gave rise to a substantial question of law. Regarding the first issue (Section 40(a)(ia)), the Tribunal had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, which held that tax deduction is not required if the sums payable to non-residents are not chargeable to tax under the Act. The High Court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied this precedent to the facts. Concerning the second issue (Section 14A), the Tribunal had relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. Corrtech Energy P. Ltd. This precedent stated that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not claimed exemption for any income. The High Court noted that it was an admitted position that the assessee had not claimed any income exemption. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was based on applying the jurisdictional High Court's ruling to the facts, and no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was summarily dismissed.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion. It noted that during the original assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer had examined the petitioner's claim for deduction under section 80IB(3) and partly allowed it after considering the petitioner's submissions and details. The court found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issue, and therefore, the subsequent attempt to reopen the assessment on the same grounds constituted a change of opinion. Regarding the second issue, the court observed that the notice was issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year 2011-2012. The first proviso to section 147 requires the AO to have a reason to believe that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The court found no such failure on the part of the petitioner, as all necessary material was produced during the scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment beyond the four-year period without establishing such failure. Consequently, the impugned notice and all proceedings pursuant thereto were quashed and set aside.
The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority with respect to the grievance raised in the petition. The specific findings within the order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 220(2A) and the applicability of CBDT Circular No.14 (XI-35) dated 11.4.1955 were not adjudicated upon by the High Court, as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's request for withdrawal. No principle of law was established or decided on merits.
The High Court held that in light of the Circular No. 23 of 2019, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and which is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) did not press the present appeals. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of as not pressed. The Court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeals. The specific issue or order under challenge and the merits of the case were not decided.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court held that the tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion in favour of the assessee. The tribunal's observation that the assessee had submitted details with supporting documents, including an operation approval for a Three Star Hotel from the Ministry of Tourism dated 30/08/2010, Building Use Permission from the Municipal Authority dated 18/10/2011, and various other licenses and certificates, was considered sufficient. The Court agreed with the tribunal's interpretation that no specific date for the certificate was mandated by Section 35AD(5)(aa) and that the provision should be read as a beneficial provision to encourage hotel establishment. The ratio relied upon was from the Madras High Court in Ceebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which held that the date of the certificate is not a mandatory requirement and the interpretation given by the tribunal considering the facts was valid. Therefore, no substantial question of law was involved.
The High Court held that the assessee's contention that the preconditions laid down under Section 271AAA(2) were not fulfilled is devoid of merit. The court found that the assessee had stated from where the income was earned. It reasoned that if there was any doubt in the revenue's mind, they should have asked further questions. Once the initial onus placed by the explanation was discharged by the assessee, the onus shifted to the revenue. If no further questions were asked, the matter ended there. The court found no infirmity in the ITAT's order. The appeals were dismissed, and the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The High Court held that the assessee's contention that the penalty preconditions under Section 271AAA(2) were not fulfilled is devoid of merit. The assessee had stated in its answer from where the income was earned. The Court reasoned that once the initial onus placed by the explanation to Section 271 is discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts to the revenue. If the revenue had any doubt, they should have asked further questions. Since no further questions were asked, the matter ends there. The Court found no infirmity in the ITAT's order. The common substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeals. The penalty was deleted.
The High Court held that the Tax Appeals are not pressed by the Revenue. The reason cited is the low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular establishes revised monetary limits for filing appeals, with Rs. 1,00,00,000 being the limit for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, based on the Revenue's decision not to press the appeals due to the low tax effect and the guidance provided by the circular, both Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute is recorded, as the appeals were not pursued.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2011-12 was liable to be quashed and set aside. The Court found that the notice was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and did not comply with the requirements of the proviso to Section 147. Specifically, the Court noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, which had been concluded under Section 143(3), on the grounds stated. The Court reasoned that for reopening beyond four years, there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In this case, the Court found no basis to presume that the share allocation was at an artificially high premium or that the assessee had failed to disclose material facts. The Court emphasized that merely receiving a sizeable sum as share premium does not automatically imply it was artificially increased, and reopening for a fishing or roving inquiry after a scrutiny assessment is not permissible. The vital link, which is the tangible material at the AO's command to form a belief of escapement of income due to non-disclosure, was missing.
The High Court held that whether an activity amounts to 'manufacture' is a question of fact and evidence, dependent on the specific case. The Court applied the tests laid down by the Apex Court and High Court, which require that the raw material must undergo a process resulting in a new and distinct article regarded by the trade as such, losing the identity of the raw material. The Tribunal's findings of fact, which considered expert opinions on the processes involved in making transformer cores (though the specific product in this appeal is CCGL, the reasoning on manufacturing is applied), indicated that the processes resulted in a new product with a distinct name, shape, and use. The Court found no legal infirmity in the ITAT's order, especially considering the technical nature of the issue and the reliance on expert opinions. The decisions relied upon by the Revenue were distinguished. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, and the ITAT's order was not disturbed.