Loading High Court cases…
36 orders from the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Most recent orders on record, 2021–2025.
The High Court held that an assessee undertaking substantial expansion of a unit eligible for 100% deduction under Section 80-IC can claim the same 100% deduction on profits from the expanded unit, even if it's beyond the initial five-year period. The Supreme Court's decision in Aarham Softronics was cited as binding.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ITAT's orders. The ITAT was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.
The High Court held that the provision for leave encashment was not an admissible deduction for the relevant assessment year. The insertion of Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which requires actual payment for such deductions, applied prospectively and regulated the deduction.
The High Court found that the factual matrix of the case was not adequately discussed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax for a fresh decision after considering all aspects.
The High Court held that the assessee had a reasonable and bonafide cause for the delay in filing the return, as accepted by the appellant on facts. Therefore, the assessee should not be burdened with taxes it is otherwise not liable to pay.
The High Court found that the ITAT had wrongly noted the date of filing of the miscellaneous application. Considering the Supreme Court's order on condonation of delay due to the pandemic, the application was within the prescribed time. Therefore, the ITAT's order rejecting the application was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. It also found that the assessee had utilized funds exceeding the 85% threshold for charitable purposes, satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. It also found that the assessee had utilized funds exceeding the 85% threshold for charitable purposes, satisfying the conditions for exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.
The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.
The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.
The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.
The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.
The Tribunal held that the Excise and Taxation Department would not be liable to pay the tax if the toll lessees had already paid income tax on their earnings. However, the department would be liable to pay interest on the short-deducted TCS.
The Tribunal held that additions to the extent of peak credit in bank accounts were justified, and that construction expenses and investment expenses are distinct. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to tax the interest on sticky loans/NPAs on a receipt basis. This was based on the interpretation that the amendment to Section 43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, extending its scope to cooperative banks, was curative and retrospective in nature.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to tax the interest on sticky loans/NPAs on a receipt basis. This was based on the interpretation that the amendment to Section 43D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, extending its scope to cooperative banks, was curative and retrospective in nature.
The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification was based on a misappreciation of facts and that there was no mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not to be interfered with.
The Tribunal held that Unit-III was a separate and distinct unit, entitled to deduction under Section 80-IC. The High Court found the Tribunal's decision was not perverse and was based on material on record.
The Tribunal rightly held that Unit-III was a separate and distinct unit, entitling the assessee to the deduction under Section 80-IC, as it operated from a different building, had separate employees, and maintained distinct accounts.
The High Court held that the exception for Revenue Audit objections did not apply to the facts of the case. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.
The ITAT held that there was substantial compliance with Section 54 as the assessee had invested an amount for acquiring a residential flat before the due date of filing the return. The tribunal ruled that a direct link between the sale proceeds and the investment is not mandatory if the investment is made within the stipulated period.
The ITAT correctly dismissed the Department's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Department's attempt to raise a new ground regarding an exemption clause in a previous circular was not permissible at this stage.
The ITAT correctly held the revenue's appeal to be not maintainable due to the enhanced monetary limits specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The High Court found no substantial question of law and upheld the ITAT's decision.
The High Court considered the applications filed by the appellant. For the reasons stated in these applications, the Court decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.