Loading High Court cases…
539 orders · Page 11 of 11
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be disposed of in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019. The reasoning was based on the policy outlined in the circular, which sets monetary limits for appeals. The court noted the table provided in the circular, which specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. The court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the stated policy.
The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The court noted the monetary limits stipulated in the circular, which indicate that appeals before the High Court have a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this basis. The court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court decided to dispose of the tax appeal as not pressed, citing the low tax effect and the policy enunciated in Circular No. 17/2019. The court acknowledged the monetary limits for appeals before the High Court as Rs. 1,00,00,000 as per the circular. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with this circular. The court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT, as the appeal was not pressed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue due to its low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The circular specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The Revenue's decision not to press the appeal aligns with this policy. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The Court reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the Revenue's policy.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be disposed of in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The circular establishes monetary limits for appeals before various authorities, with appeals before the High Court having a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000. The court noted that the appeal was not pressed on this basis. The court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The liberty was reserved for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the stated policy.
The High Court decided to dispose of the Tax Appeal in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1) in light of the monetary limits prescribed by the circular. The circular sets a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold, it was deemed appropriate to dispose of the appeal without delving into the merits. The Court explicitly reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the appeal was not adjudicated on its merits due to the policy decision reflected in the circular.
The High Court noted that the appeal was listed for passing an appropriate order due to its low tax effect. The Revenue stated that the appeal was not pressed in view of Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019. This circular provides a table of monetary limits for appeals, with appeals before the High Court having a limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000. In light of this policy and the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal, the Court disposed of the tax appeal accordingly. The Court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be disposed of in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, due to the low tax effect. The Revenue stated that the appeal was not pressed for this reason. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of accordingly. The Revenue is granted liberty to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. The specific tax effect or the original assessment years are not recorded in the judgment.
The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad decided to dispose of the Tax Appeal in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The court noted that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue. The circular specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect of the present appeal was low, it was disposed of in accordance with this policy. The court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal.
The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The reasoning is based on the Revenue's decision to not pursue the appeal given the monetary limits stipulated in the circular. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of. The court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original assessment or the order under challenge was decided.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be disposed of in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue had stated that the appeal was not pressed due to the low tax effect, referencing this circular. The Court acknowledged the circular's policy regarding monetary limits for appeals before the High Court (Rs. 1,00,00,000). Consequently, the appeal was disposed of based on this policy. The Court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of procedurally.
The High Court held that the Tax Appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, aligning with Circular No. 17/2019. The court noted the policy reflected in the circular, which sets monetary limits for appeals. Specifically, for appeals before the High Court, the monetary limit is Rs. 1,00,00,000. Since the appeal was not pressed due to low tax effect, the court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty, implying the decision was based on administrative policy rather than a substantive decision on the merits of the tax dispute.
The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad decided to dispose of the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019. The court noted that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect. The circular establishes monetary limits for appeals, with a limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below this limit, the Revenue chose not to press the matter. The court accordingly disposed of the appeal. The court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the stated policy.
The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the monetary limits specified in the circular for appeals before the High Court (Rs. 1,00,00,000). Consequently, the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court held that the tax appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The court referred to the monetary limits stipulated in the circular, which specifies Rs. 1,00,00,000 as the limit for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with this circular. The court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of the Tax Appeal. The Court noted that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, referencing Circular No. 17/2019. This circular establishes monetary limits for appeals, with appeals before the High Court having a limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of based on this policy. The Court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue on merits was decided.
The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019. The circular specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with this policy. The Court reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. The specific tax effect or the assessment year(s) were not recorded in the judgment. No finding was given on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue due to its low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The circular establishes monetary limits for appeals, with Rs. 1,00,00,000 being the limit for appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the appeal was to be disposed of based on this policy. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. Liberty was reserved for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the monetary limit for appeals before the High Court is Rs. 1,00,00,000. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in accordance with this policy. The reasoning is based on the Revenue's decision not to pursue the appeal due to its low tax effect, aligning with the CBDT's instructions to avoid litigation on such matters. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a low tax effect, as defined by the relevant circular, are to be withdrawn or not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. Liberty was reserved for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty.
The High Court noted that the appeal was notified for passing an appropriate order due to low tax effect, in line with Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue stated that the appeal was not pressed in view of the low tax effect, referencing the aforementioned circular. The circular provides monetary limits for appeals, with Rs. 1,00,00,000 being the limit for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was notified for passing an appropriate order due to its low tax effect, in line with Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue stated that the appeal was not pressed in view of this circular and the low tax effect. The circular specifies monetary limits for appeals before various authorities, including the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000. The High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. Liberty was reserved for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal was made.
The High Court noted that the appeal was notified for passing an appropriate order due to its low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The Court observed that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Revenue) in view of this circular and the monetary limits prescribed therein for appeals before the High Court (Rs. 1,00,00,000). Consequently, the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The Court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court noted that the appeal was notified for passing an appropriate order due to low tax effect, in line with Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue explicitly stated that the appeal was not pressed in view of this circular. The circular establishes a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The Court also reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court held that the tax appeal was not pressed by the Revenue in view of the low tax effect, considering Circular No. 17/2019. This circular establishes a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original tax dispute, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.
The High Court noted that the captioned appeal was notified for passing an appropriate order due to low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Court observed that the appeal was not pressed in view of the low tax effect, as per the new policy reflected in the said circular. The circular provides monetary limits for appeals before various authorities, including the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of accordingly. The Court reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. The specific finding on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT is not discussed or decided by the High Court.
The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad held that the Tax Appeal is not pressed by the Revenue due to the low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The circular establishes a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. As the current appeal falls under this threshold, it is disposed of. The Court reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding on the merits of the original assessment or the grounds of appeal was made, as the appeal was not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Revenue) due to the low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The circular establishes monetary limits for appeals, with Rs. 1,00,00,000 being the limit for appeals before the High Court. Since the appeal was not pressed based on this policy, the Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The Court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court noted that the appeals were notified due to low tax effect and were to be disposed of in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue explicitly stated that the tax appeal was not pressed in view of the low tax effect, referencing the monetary limits prescribed in the aforementioned circular. The circular stipulates a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court noted that the appeals were notified due to low tax effect and were to be disposed of in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue explicitly stated that the tax appeal was not pressed in view of the low tax effect, referencing the monetary limits prescribed in the aforementioned circular. The circular stipulates a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The court also reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court held that the writ application filed by the Revenue fails and is rejected. The Court relied on its coordinate bench's decision in Special Civil Application No.7520 of 2021. The coordinate bench had observed that Circular No.23/2019 dated 06.09.2019 and the Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 do not have retrospective effect. These circulars provide exceptions for filing appeals on merits in cases of organized tax evasion, particularly involving bogus LTCG/STCL through penny stocks, but only when a special order is passed by the Board. The appeals dismissed by the ITAT on 14.08.2019 were prior to the issuance of these circulars and thus could not be considered as filed pursuant to any special order of the CBDT under these circulars. Therefore, the ITAT had not committed any apparent mistake requiring rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order of the ITAT rejecting the Miscellaneous Application was found to be without illegality or infirmity.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid. While acknowledging that a reopening based solely on a change of opinion from existing material is impermissible, the Court found that in this case, the original assessment did not involve a conscious consideration of the relevant material. The assessee had failed to disclose 'fully and truly' all material facts necessary for the assessment, particularly concerning the nature of the transaction and the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). The Court found that the assessee's disclosure in the audit report was not sufficient material evidence that the Assessing Officer could have discovered with due diligence. The Court agreed with the revenue that the original assessment was based on information that was not fully and truly disclosed, leading to an escapement of income. Since the reopening was within four years, the proviso to Section 147 was not applicable. The Court concluded that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer led to a valid formation of belief regarding escapement of income, and therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was valid. The petition was dismissed.
The High Court held that the issue of a notice of reopening under Section 148 to a deceased assessee is no longer res integra, referring to its own decision in Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the Revenue's Special Leave Petition on September 27, 2021. Consequently, the writ application was allowed, and the impugned notice of reopening was quashed and set aside. All consequential proceedings arising from the notice were also terminated. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased assessee is void ab initio and without jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the issue of whether a notice of reopening issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction when served on a deceased assessee is no longer res integra. The Court relied on its own decision in Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the Revenue's Special Leave Petition on September 27, 2021. Consequently, the writ application was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. All consequential proceedings pursuant to the notice were also terminated. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued under Section 148 to a dead assessee is invalid and without jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the issue of a notice of reopening under Section 148 to a deceased assessee is no longer res integra, citing its own decision in Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer. The Court noted that this decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the Revenue's Special Leave Petition. Consequently, the writ application was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. All consequential proceedings were also terminated. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 issued to a deceased assessee is void ab initio.
The High Court held that the issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a deceased assessee is without jurisdiction. The Court referred to its own decision in Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of the Revenue's Special Leave Petition. Consequently, the writ application was allowed, and the impugned notice dated March 13, 2021, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued under Section 148 to a dead assessee is a nullity and cannot be sustained.
The High Court held that the issue of a notice of reopening under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to a dead assessee is without jurisdiction. The Court relied on its own decision in Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the impugned notice of reopening was quashed and set aside. All consequential proceedings arising from this notice were also terminated. The Court found the writ application to be successful.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer did not duly follow the procedure contemplated under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the relevant aspects pointed out by the assessee were not looked into from a proper perspective, and there was no discussion of these aspects in the impugned assessment order. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned assessment order and remitted the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to meaningfully consider all relevant aspects highlighted by the assessee, including the observations made by the Court, and to assign cogent reasons if the assessee's stance was rejected. The exercise was to be completed within eight weeks.
The High Court held that the conditions precedent for reopening assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not satisfied. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for reopening was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing, without applying independent mind. The reasons provided were not specific enough regarding the nature of transactions, basic details, or the parties involved, which goes to the root of the matter. The Court concluded that the Assessing Officer mechanically relied on information received and did not properly apply their mind. Therefore, the Court was not convinced with the satisfaction arrived at by the respondent for assuming jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for AY 2014-15/2015-16. The ratio decidendi is that reopening under Section 147 requires independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer based on tangible material, not merely on information received from other wings without verification or specific details.
The High Court held that the conditions precedent for reopening assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not satisfied. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for reopening was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing, without applying independent mind. The reasons provided were not specific enough regarding the nature of transactions, basic details, or the parties involved, which goes to the root of the matter. The Court concluded that the Assessing Officer mechanically relied on information received and did not properly apply their mind. Therefore, the Court was not convinced with the satisfaction arrived at by the respondent for assuming jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for AY 2014-15/2015-16. The ratio decidendi is that reopening under Section 147 requires independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer based on tangible material, not merely on information received from other wings without verification or specific details.