Loading High Court cases…
548 orders · Page 7 of 11
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) as they did not wish to prosecute them due to opting for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. Similarly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed.
The High Court noted that the assessees had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme to settle the disputes pending before the court. Consequently, the assessees informed the court that they did not wish to prosecute their appeals. Based on this, the court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees. For the appeals filed by the Revenue, the court also dismissed them, stating that since the assessees had settled the disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme, the Revenue's appeals were also dismissed. The court granted liberty to both the assessee(s) and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order if the settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme did not reach a logical conclusion or if the assessee failed to deposit the stipulated amount. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals with liberty to seek recall.
The High Court noted that the assessee(s) had availed the option to settle the disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and, therefore, did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The Court recorded this statement and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s). Subsequently, considering the assessee's settlement under the scheme, the Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. However, the Court granted liberty to both the assessee(s) and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order if the assessee(s) could not avail the benefit of settlement, failed to deposit the stipulated amount, or if the object of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was obliterated. The appeals were dismissed with this liberty granted to both parties.
The High Court noted that the assessee(s) had availed the option to settle the disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and, therefore, did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The Court recorded this statement and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s). Subsequently, considering the assessee's settlement under the scheme, the Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. However, the Court granted liberty to both the assessee(s) and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order if the assessee(s) could not avail the benefit of settlement, failed to deposit the stipulated amount, or if the object of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was obliterated. The appeals were dismissed with this liberty granted to both parties.
The High Court noted that the assessee(s) had availed the option to settle the disputes under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and, therefore, did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The Court recorded this statement and dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s). Subsequently, considering the assessee's settlement under the scheme, the Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. However, the Court granted liberty to both the assessee(s) and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order if the assessee(s) could not avail the benefit of settlement, failed to deposit the stipulated amount, or if the object of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was obliterated. The appeals were dismissed with this liberty granted to both parties.
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee(s) because they had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The court recorded the statement made by the assessee's counsel regarding this decision. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were also dismissed. However, the court granted liberty to both the assessee(s) and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order if the assessee(s) could not avail the benefit of the settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme, or if they failed to deposit the stipulated amount, thereby obliterating the object of the scheme. This conditional dismissal aimed to protect the interests of both parties. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals, with a specific liberty granted to recall the order under certain circumstances.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees, noting their statement that they had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was predicated on the assessees' settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The Court granted liberty to both the assessee and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order and to have their respective appeals heard on merit if the assessee failed to obtain the benefit of settlement, or if they failed to deposit the stipulated amount, thereby rendering the 'Vivad se Vishwas' remedy ineffective. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals with liberty to seek recall under specific circumstances.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees, noting their statement that they had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was predicated on the assessees' settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The Court granted liberty to both the assessee and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order and to have their respective appeals heard on merit if the assessee failed to obtain the benefit of settlement, or if they failed to deposit the stipulated amount, thereby rendering the 'Vivad se Vishwas' remedy ineffective. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals with liberty to seek recall under specific circumstances.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees, noting their statement that they had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was predicated on the assessees' settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The Court granted liberty to both the assessee and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order and to have their respective appeals heard on merit if the assessee failed to obtain the benefit of settlement, or if they failed to deposit the stipulated amount, thereby rendering the 'Vivad se Vishwas' remedy ineffective. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals with liberty to seek recall under specific circumstances.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees, noting their statement that they had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not wish to prosecute their appeals. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This dismissal was predicated on the assessees' settlement under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme. The Court granted liberty to both the assessee and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order and to have their respective appeals heard on merit if the assessee failed to obtain the benefit of settlement, or if they failed to deposit the stipulated amount, thereby rendering the 'Vivad se Vishwas' remedy ineffective. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals with liberty to seek recall under specific circumstances.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees, noting their statement that they had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not wish to prosecute the appeals. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was granted with liberty to both the assessee(s) and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order if the assessee(s) could not avail the benefit of the settlement, failed to deposit the stipulated amount, or if the object of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was obliterated. This conditional dismissal was to protect the interests of both parties, acknowledging the developments during the pendency of the appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals with liberty to seek recall.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees, noting their statement that they had availed the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme and did not wish to prosecute the appeals. The Court also dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was granted with liberty to both the assessee(s) and the Revenue to file a petition for recalling the order if the assessee(s) could not avail the benefit of the settlement, failed to deposit the stipulated amount, or if the object of the 'Vivad se Vishwas' scheme was obliterated. This conditional dismissal was to protect the interests of both parties, acknowledging the developments during the pendency of the appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of all appeals with liberty to seek recall.
The High Court held that the deduction under Section 80HHC and Section 80-IB are not simultaneous. The deduction granted under Section 80-IB must be excluded while computing the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC. This conclusion is based on the explicit provisions of Section 80-IA(9) of the Act, which prohibits claiming deduction to the extent of profits and gains allowed under Section 80-IA as an eligible business, from other heads of deduction under Chapter VI-A. The Court found no ambiguity in Section 80-IA(9) and affirmed the intention of the legislature that simultaneous deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80HHC is not permissible. The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and found no reason to depart from it. Regarding the third issue, the Court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding that the process of sterilization and packing of purchased gloves did not create a new product and therefore did not amount to 'manufacture' for the purpose of Section 80-IB. The questions were answered in favour of the revenue.
The High Court held that the deduction under Section 80HHC and Section 80-IB are not simultaneous. The deduction granted under Section 80-IB must be excluded while computing the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC. This conclusion is based on the explicit provisions of Section 80-IA(9) of the Act, which prohibits claiming deduction to the extent of profits and gains allowed under Section 80-IA as an eligible business, from other heads of deduction under Chapter VI-A. The Court found no ambiguity in Section 80-IA(9) and affirmed the intention of the legislature that simultaneous deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80HHC is not permissible. The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and found no reason to depart from it. Regarding the third issue, the Court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding that the process of sterilization and packing of purchased gloves did not create a new product and therefore did not amount to 'manufacture' for the purpose of Section 80-IB. The questions were answered in favour of the revenue.
The High Court held that the deduction under Section 80HHC and Section 80-IB are not simultaneous. The deduction granted under Section 80-IB must be excluded while computing the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC. This conclusion is based on the explicit provisions of Section 80-IA(9) of the Act, which prohibits claiming deduction to the extent of profits and gains allowed under Section 80-IA as an eligible business, from other heads of deduction under Chapter VI-A. The Court found no ambiguity in Section 80-IA(9) and affirmed the intention of the legislature that simultaneous deduction under Section 80-IA and Section 80HHC is not permissible. The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Olam Exports (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and found no reason to depart from it. Regarding the third issue, the Court upheld the Tribunal's factual finding that the process of sterilization and packing of purchased gloves did not create a new product and therefore did not amount to 'manufacture' for the purpose of Section 80-IB. The questions were answered in favour of the revenue.
The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the fact that the value of the subject appeal was less than the limit stipulated by the CBDT Circular. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in S.C. Naregal (supra), which considered the effect of CBDT Circulars and dismissed appeals falling within their purport. Therefore, applying the Supreme Court's precedent and the latest circular, the High Court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable and consequently dismissed it. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was disposed of on the ground of maintainability.
The High Court, following Supreme Court and its own previous judgments, held that the assessee can claim set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income earned. The appeals were decided based on these precedents.
The High Court held that the denial of the right to cross-examine resulted in prejudice to the dealer, making the penalty order illegal. The Tribunal's reasoning was found to be insufficient in addressing this prejudice.
The High Court noted that while it had previously held lease rent as business income for AY 1995-96 to 2003-04 (under BIFR scheme) and as income from other sources for AY 2004-05 to 2009-10, the facts for AY 2010-11 onwards required reconsideration. Crucially, the Court was apprised that the assessee had surrendered the 20.78-acre land lease in 2017 due to non-commencement of business activities. This development, which occurred after the Tribunal's order, was not considered by the lower authorities. The Court found it necessary to revisit whether the rental income for AY 2010-11 onwards should be treated as business income or income from other sources in light of this surrender and the failure to commence manufacturing. The Court also deemed the issues regarding professional charges, interest, and gifted shares as ancillary. Consequently, the Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the cases to the assessing officer for a fresh consideration of all questions, after hearing the parties. The appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, raising identical questions, were also remanded.
The High Court, following Supreme Court and its own previous judgments, held that the assessee can claim set off of unabsorbed depreciation against income earned. The appeals were decided based on these precedents.
The High Court held that the principles of natural justice were not followed in passing the impugned assessment order dated May 23, 2021. The court noted that the State of Kerala was under lockdown from May 5, 2021, and the petitioner had a deadline of May 10, 2021, to file their reply. The petitioner's request for an extension, communicated via Ext.P14, was not considered before finalizing the assessment. Consequently, the court found the assessment order to be in patent violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The impugned assessment order was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent for a fresh assessment, requiring them to follow the principles of natural justice, invite a reply from the petitioner, and pass a fresh order within three months from the date of the judgment's communication.
The Tribunal held that the benefit under clause (vii) of Explanation to Section 115JA(2) is determined based on the assessment year, not the previous year. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit for AY 2000-01.
The High Court noted that while it had previously held lease rent as business income for AY 1995-96 to 2003-04 (under BIFR scheme) and as income from other sources for AY 2004-05 to 2009-10, the facts for AY 2010-11 onwards required reconsideration. Crucially, the Court was apprised that the assessee had surrendered the 20.78-acre land lease in 2017 due to non-commencement of business activities. This development, which occurred after the Tribunal's order, was not considered by the lower authorities. The Court found it necessary to revisit whether the rental income for AY 2010-11 onwards should be treated as business income or income from other sources in light of this surrender and the failure to commence manufacturing. The Court also deemed the issues regarding professional charges, interest, and gifted shares as ancillary. Consequently, the Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the cases to the assessing officer for a fresh consideration of all questions, after hearing the parties. The appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, raising identical questions, were also remanded.
The High Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This was based on the finding that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing activity during the relevant assessment years.
The High Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This was based on the finding that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing activity during the relevant assessment years.
The High Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This was based on the finding that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing activity during the relevant assessment years.
The High Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This was based on the finding that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing activity during the relevant assessment years.
The High Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This was based on the finding that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing activity during the relevant assessment years.
The High Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This was based on the finding that the assessee did not carry out any manufacturing activity during the relevant assessment years.
The High Court consolidated the appeals, treating ITA No. 185 of 2013 as the lead case. The Court reframed the questions of law. Regarding the primary issue, for all assessment years from 2004-05 to 2009-10, the Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee from Apollo Tyres Limited was to be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This was based on the finding that the assessee had not carried out any manufacturing activity during these years, and the lease agreements, though renewed, did not alter this fundamental position. The terms of the lease were found to be almost identical across the years, and no change of circumstances was brought to the Court's notice to vary the finding. Consequently, the questions of law were answered against the assessee. The Court confirmed the Tribunal's disallowance of the expenditure claimed as quality loss for assessment year 2004-05, noting that any such loss would be attributable to ATL and not the assessee. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the lease rent received by the assessee from Apollo Tyres Limited for the assessment years 2004-05 through 2009-10 should be treated as income from other sources, not business income. This decision was based on the finding that the assessee had not carried out any manufacturing activity during these years. The lease agreements, though renewed, did not alter the fundamental absence of manufacturing operations by the assessee. Consequently, the question of law regarding the classification of rental income was answered against the assessee. Regarding the 'quality loss' claimed as expenditure for assessment year 2004-05, the Court confirmed the Tribunal's disallowance, reasoning that any such loss would be attributable to Apollo Tyres Limited and not the assessee, given the lack of manufacturing activity by the assessee. The penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was not explicitly decided upon in the provided excerpt, but the overall dismissal of appeals suggests it was not allowed as a deduction or was otherwise resolved against the assessee. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the lease rental receipts should be treated as income from business. The Court reasoned that the lease was part of a statutory approved scheme by BIFR for the rehabilitation of the assessee, a sick company. The scheme involved the utilization of the assessee's plant and machinery for manufacturing tyres, with the assessee's workforce deployed and the total production taken over by ATL. The Court viewed this as an activity undertaken to exploit business assets, which is intrinsic to the concept of 'business' as understood in commercial parlance. The Court emphasized that the scheme was designed to revive the company and that treating the income as business income was essential for the scheme to achieve its objectives, including adjusting accumulated losses and unavailed depreciation. The Court found the Tribunal's findings justifiable, even if considered a mixed question of law and fact, and concluded that the claim for lease rental receipt as income from business was warranted for the assessment years in question. Consequently, substantial question Nos. 3 to 5 were answered in favour of the assessee, and questions 1 and 2 were not answered. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the lease rental receipts derived by the assessee from the leasing of its assets to ATL, under the BIFR-approved scheme, constituted income from business. The Court reasoned that the scheme was designed for the revival of a sick company, and the assessee was obligated to exploit its business assets to earn income. The leasing arrangement, involving the utilization of plant and machinery for tyre manufacturing, deployment of workforce, and ATL taking over the total production, was considered an active business operation aimed at rehabilitation. The Court emphasized that the word 'business' in Section 14 of the Act has a commercial implication and that the activity was undertaken with the prudence of an ordinary businessman. The Court found that the Tribunal's findings were justifiable and warranted in the circumstances. Consequently, substantial questions of law (3 to 5) were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Questions 1 and 2 were deemed not to require an answer in view of the conclusion on other questions. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the ITAT's reasoning regarding the write-back of the provision for excise duty was correct. The Court noted that the AO and CIT (Appeals) erred in insisting that book profits under Section 115JA or 115JB must have been computed by the AO for the provision to be written back. The Court reasoned that it is the AO's responsibility to compute income under both normal and special provisions, and tax is collected on the higher of the two. The omission by the AO to refer to special provisions (Section 115JA/115JB) in the assessment orders for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 should not deny the assessee the benefit of writing back the provision under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB. The Court found that the assessee was subjected to a slab rate of 30% under normal provisions for those years, and the denial of the write-back benefit was illegal. The Court also noted that the assessment orders are presumed to be made in accordance with law, and the AO cannot be said to have failed in their statutory obligation. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the lease rental receipts should be treated as income from business for the subject assessment years. The court found that the assessee's commercial assets were employed to earn income under the approved scheme.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner at the earliest, in accordance with law. Until the disposal of the appeal, the respondents were directed to keep in abeyance the recovery and collection of the tax assessed as per the assessment order. This decision was made considering the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. Nos.1529, 1530, 1535 & 1536 of 2019 on July 1, 2019. The specific issue of the correctness of the assessment order itself, or the grounds for stay, were not decided on merits by the High Court, but the procedural aspect of expediting the appeal and staying recovery was addressed.
The High Court held that the lease rental receipts by the assessee should be treated as income from business. The Court reasoned that the arrangement with ATL was an integral part of the BIFR-approved scheme for the rehabilitation of the sick company. The scheme mandated the assessee to exploit its business assets, earn income, and work towards becoming a viable entity. The deployment of the assessee's workforce, the utilization of its plant and machinery for tyre manufacturing by ATL, and the reimbursement of actuals by ATL, coupled with ATL lifting the total production, indicated active commercial engagement. The Court emphasized that the word 'business' in Section 14 of the Income Tax Act has a commercial implication. Treating the income as business income was crucial for the scheme's success, allowing the assessee to adjust accumulated losses and unavailed depreciation. The Court found the Tribunal's findings justifiable, even if considered a mixed question of law and fact, and answered substantial questions 3 to 5 in favour of the assessee. Consequently, questions 1 and 2 were deemed not to require an answer, and the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the lease rental receipts should be treated as income from business for the subject assessment years. The court found that the assessee's commercial assets were employed to earn income under the approved scheme.
The High Court held that the lease rental receipts should be treated as income from business for the subject assessment years. The court found that the assessee's commercial assets were employed to earn income under the approved scheme.
The High Court held that the lease rental receipts derived by the assessee from the leasing of its business assets to ATL, under the BIFR-approved scheme, constituted income from business. The Court reasoned that the scheme was designed for the revival of a sick company, and the arrangement involved the active utilization of the assessee's business assets, including plant and machinery, for manufacturing tyres. The deployment of the assessee's workforce, the lifting of total production by ATL, and the overall viability of the assessee's affairs through the settlement indicated a commercial exploitation of assets. The Court emphasized that the term 'business' in Section 14 of the Act has a commercial implication. Unless the income is treated as business income, the scheme would not yield the expected results for losses and unavailed depreciation. Therefore, the claim of lease rental receipt as income from business was justifiable for the assessment years in question. The Court answered substantial questions 3 to 5 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, questions 1 and 2 were rendered unnecessary to answer. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.