Loading High Court cases…
252 orders · Page 3 of 6
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable because the tax effect involved was less than ₹2 Crores, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The court found the Revenue's calculation of the tax effect to be without basis.
The High Court dismissed the current appeal as it raised identical substantial questions of law. These questions were already covered by previous judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The High Court dismissed the current appeal, stating that the substantial questions of law were already covered by previous judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, there was no reason to entertain this appeal.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding that the questions of law were covered by a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited.
The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order of remand, given the CBDT's subsequent circular extending the time limit for filing Form 10AB. The circular allowed for fresh applications even if the previous one was rejected for delay.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was correct. The filter for selecting comparables, which required service revenue to be at least 75% of total operating revenue, was correctly applied at the entity level. Therefore, the exclusion of the two companies was justified.
The High Court, following its previous decision in a similar appeal, held that it had no other option but to dismiss the present appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The High Court noted that the appellant sought to withdraw their appeal in light of the department's appeal being dismissed. Consequently, the court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the order giving effect to the TPO's re-adjustment was void ab initio because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a Draft Assessment Order as required by Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court took note of the memo filed by the appellant seeking to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty to revive it as requested.
The High Court held that the interconnect service charges are not taxable in India as royalty, following its own prior judgment and a subsequent Supreme Court dismissal of an appeal on the same issue.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. Since the issue was concluded, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival if exceptions are made out.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its prior judgment in a similar case. The ITAT's decision that software payments were not royalty and not taxable in India was upheld.
The High Court held that the appeal, filed after the company was ordered to be wound up, was not maintainable. The court dismissed the appeal on this ground.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn based on the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the Revenue to revive it if exceptions under the relevant CBDT circulars apply. The substantial questions of law were kept open.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit. The court found that the applicability of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was not the core issue in this appeal.
The High Court noted that the issue was settled by MAP and the consequential order was passed. Since the matter was resolved between the parties, the appeal no longer survived for consideration.
The High Court held that the questions of law were no longer res integra, being covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Engineering Analysis. The court also noted that the Supreme Court had held similar payments in the payer's case as not being royalty.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any factual or legal distinction, and their review petition was dismissed. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court noted that the monetary limit to file appeals before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. This circular applies to pending appeals as well.
The High Court noted that the appellant (Income Tax Department) filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted the permission and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer, in compliance with the remand order, re-examined the issue and again held the receipt as 'royalty'. Therefore, the challenge to the remand order itself no longer survived for consideration.
The High Court allowed the memo filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the Ministry of Finance had enhanced the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. This circular applies to pending appeals as well.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the enhanced monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court, as per a circular from the Ministry of Finance. Liberty was granted to seek revival if an exception is made out.
The High Court dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to raise all available grounds before the competent authority.
The High Court dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to raise all available grounds before the competent authority.
The Tribunal held that since two views were possible on the taxability of the receipts, and the assessee had a bona fide belief that they were not taxable, penalty under Section 270-A could not be levied. The High Court found no infirmity in this order.
The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that the deducted TDS amount could be claimed as a refund by the employee by filing income tax returns. The Court granted liberty to the employee to file returns and claim the refund.
The tribunal held that since two views were possible on the taxability of the receipts and the assessee had a bona fide belief, penalty under Section 270-A could not be levied. The High Court found no infirmity in this order.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as there were two possible views on the taxability of the receipts, and the assessee held a bona fide belief that the payments were not taxable.
The Tribunal held that since two views were possible on the taxability of the receipts, and the assessee genuinely believed the payments were not taxable, penalty under Section 270-A could not be levied. The High Court found no infirmity in this order.
The Tribunal held that since two views were possible on the taxability of the receipts, and the assessee held a bona fide belief that the payments were not taxable, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied. The High Court found no infirmity in this order.
The tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270-A could not be levied as the issue was debatable with two possible views. The assessee genuinely believed the payments were not taxable, and the matter had been settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The High Court noted that the appeal fell under the monetary limit specified in a CBDT circular, indicating the matter should be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without adjudicating the substantial questions of law.
The High Court disposed of the appeals as withdrawn based on a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The substantial questions of law raised were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn based on a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court noted that the appeal fell below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular and therefore could not be continued. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court disposed of the appeals as withdrawn based on a CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals. The substantial questions of law raised were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by a CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal, referring to the Supreme Court decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence, held that payments for software where no copyright is acquired do not constitute royalty. This decision was also supported by a previous ruling in the assessee's own case.
The High Court found that the ITAT's and NFAC's decisions were based on factual findings. Since the Revenue did not project any question to assail these findings as perverse, the court was not persuaded that the appeal raised any substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the amount deposited as income tax could be claimed as a refund by the employee through income tax returns. The employee was granted liberty to file returns and claim the refund.
The High Court dismissed the writ appeal. The dismissal was based on a previous judgment by the same court in a related writ appeal that had affirmed the order under appeal.
The High Court permitted the appeal to be withdrawn. This withdrawal was subject to liberty granted to the parties to file afresh if the settlement is not finalized.
The Tribunal held that additions to income cannot be based on an expert's opinion not presented to the assessee for rebuttal, and that documents found during the search were not incriminating as they were already available to the Assessing Officer. The High Court found no perversity or error in the Tribunal's factual findings.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as having become infructuous.
The High Court held that the appeal would not be maintainable due to the reduced tax effect and subsequent developments, referencing a circular on revised monetary limits for appeals.