Loading High Court cases…
565 orders · Page 7 of 12
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. As the tax effect in this case was below this threshold, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were expressly left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Revenue due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 crore by this circular, and the tax effect in this case was below that limit. The substantial questions of law were explicitly left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded.
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal committed an error in not interfering with the order passed by the PCIT. The Court answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the PCIT's order was based on the interpretation of the CIT and constituted a roving inquiry, substituting the CIT's view for that of the AO who had conducted an enquiry and called for documents. Therefore, the power under Section 263 was not properly invoked. Concerning the second and third issues (which were intertwined with the first), the Court noted that the assessee had produced documents before the AO, who scrutinized them and accepted the claim. The Court distinguished between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry', stating that the AO had conducted an inquiry, and the PCIT could not revise the order merely due to a different opinion. The Tribunal's affirmation of the PCIT's finding was deemed perverse, especially as there was no evidence of fraud regarding the documents produced. The Court concluded that the AO had applied his mind and completed the assessment after considering the documents and records, and a reference to the TPO also found no adjustment required. The decisions relied upon by the revenue were distinguished on facts.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and an order had been passed on 09.12.2020. In light of this subsequent event, the Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favour. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was directed to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with this liberty, and the substantial questions of law were left open, meaning the Tribunal's order was not adjudicated upon merits by the High Court.
The High Court noted that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted to provide for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 05.01.2021. Since the assessee had been issued Form-3, the High Court held that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on this basis, without deciding the substantial questions of law. No costs were awarded. The principle that can be cited is that where a taxpayer opts for a tax settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas, pending appeals on tax disputes become infructuous.
The High Court, while acknowledging the Revenue's arguments, decided to take a different view due to two factors. Firstly, the assessment order was passed under Section 144. The AO had disallowed 50% of the claimed expenses of Rs. 50,49,786/- towards vessel handling charges, traveling, labour, secretarial, and postage expenses, acknowledging a prima facie view that some expenses were incurred. The Court noted that the assessee was to blame for not producing documents to justify the expenditure. Secondly, the assessee had not effectively contested the matter before the First Appellate Authority but took the issue seriously before the Tribunal, convincing them to remand two of the three issues. Considering these circumstances and the fact that the AO was already reconsidering two issues, the High Court directed the AO to also reconsider the issue of other expenses. If the assessee produced documents, the AO was to consider them and redo the assessment along with the other two remanded issues. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to a subsequent development, namely, the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeal was covered by a common judgment dated 18.12.2020 in TCA.Nos.432, 433 and 436 of 2020, to which one of the judges was a party. In light of this prior judgment, the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The High Court confirmed the impugned order passed by the ITAT. The reasoning behind this dismissal is that the specific substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were already decided in the aforementioned common judgment. Therefore, the High Court did not independently analyze the merits of the questions regarding the delay in filing the e-appeal, the applicability of Rule 45, or the condonation of delay. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the ITAT's order.
The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee had informed the court that they had filed the requisite forms under this Act. Therefore, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal in the event the decision to be passed by the Department under the Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with the aforementioned liberty, leaving the questions of law undecided.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on March 8, 2021, and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application/declaration under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration was not in their favour. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open and not decided on merits. The tax case appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty.
The High Court held that the rental income received by the assessee should be assessed under the head 'Income from Business' and not 'Income from House Property'. The Court relied on its previous decision in the assessee's own case (TCA.Nos.314 & 315 of 2017 dated 27.7.2020), which in turn followed the judgment in M/s. PSTS Heavy Lift and Shift Ltd. The reasoning was that if the primary business of the assessee is to earn rental income from properties, such income constitutes business income. The Court noted that the amended definition of 'Income from House Property' under Section 22 also excludes portions of property occupied for business purposes. The Revenue failed to establish with evidence that the development of the IT Park was not the main business activity. The Court observed that the assessee's business had diversified into developing properties for software companies and earning lease rental income as its main business. The appeals were dismissed, and the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The Tribunal was correct in vacating the penalty due to a defective notice. The Act prescribes a specific procedure for imposing penalties, which cannot be dispensed with. Section 271AAB has three contingencies, and the Assessing Officer must specify which clause the assessee is proceeded against to enable an effective reply. The penalty notice in this case was vague, with no irrelevant portions struck off and no relevant portions marked or indicated. This denied the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present submissions. The decision in PCIT Vs. Sandeep Chandak was distinguished as the factual position was different; while that case dealt with automatic attraction of Section 271AAB upon admission of undisclosed income, it still required the Assessing Officer to specify the clause under Section 271AAB(1) for proceeding. The decisions in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, SSA's Emerald Meadows, and Babuji Jacob supported the conclusion that the notice was defective. Therefore, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, falling below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court had been increased to Rs.1 crore by this circular. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed in the appeal was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
The High Court held that there was no error in the order passed by the Tribunal and that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal, in its order, had relied on the decision in Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (372 ITR 694 (Delhi)) and a Division Bench decision of the same High Court in Marg Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax [(2020) 120 taxmann.com 84]. These precedents supported the view that disallowance under Section 14A, if any, should be restricted to the dividend income earned. Consequently, the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the AO for recalculation. The High Court found no fault with this approach and dismissed the appeal. The operative direction was that the AO shall comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal. The substantial question of law was left open.
The High Court held that the Tribunal committed an error in reversing the order of the CIT(A). The Court found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in establishing the MRF Pace Foundation cannot be regarded as a donation, and it was never the assessee's case that it was a donation. The Assessing Officer had no basis to draw such a conclusion. The assessee successfully demonstrated how the training of pace bowlers aided their business activity, and these contentions were not found to be false or baseless. The Court agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee-company gained popularity due to its association with cricket, comparable to other modes of advertisement. The Tribunal erred in concluding that donations were extended to the Pace Foundation, when in fact, the assessee established it as part of its own operations, not a separate entity receiving donations. The Court also noted that the Revenue fairly conceded that other expenditures claimed by the assessee towards sponsorship and advertisement were allowed in their entirety. Therefore, the Tribunal fell into error by treating the expenditure as a donation and disallowing it. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the justifiability of adopting different methods for valuing different components of inventory and their consistency with ICAI Accounting Standards was wholly without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the Revenue had not raised any such ground before the Tribunal, and therefore, the Tribunal could not enlarge the controversy beyond what was before it. Citing M.R.M. Periannan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and R.L. Rajgharia Vs. Income Tax Officer and others, the Court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is restricted to deciding the controversy before it. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee, and that portion of the Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer was set aside. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration under the Act was not in their favour. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was instructed to entertain the restoration petition without insisting on a condonation of delay application. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were left open, and no decision was rendered on the merits of the case. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty.
The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the ITAT's order and restoring the CIT(A)'s order. The Court found that the Tribunal committed an error in reversing the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the Assessing Officer's order. The Court noted that the CIT(A)'s finding of 3.5% being reasonable was based on facts and examination of the trend for the previous assessment year. The Court also referred to the decision in K.Kannan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-I, which discussed the applicability of Section 44AD and the circumstances under which best judgment assessment is made. The Court observed that the assessee had filed a chart showing net profit ratios between 2.86% and 3.42% for AY 2012-13 to 2019-20, and that the AO in AY 2017-18 adopted 3.16% as reasonable. Therefore, the Tribunal's reversal of the CIT(A)'s order was considered an error. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was below the increased monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to file a petition to restore the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the assessee informed the Court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and therefore, no ratio decidendi was established for these specific legal points. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee informed the court that they had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law, nor was any ratio decidendi established for these issues. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on their declaration was not in their favour. If restoration was sought, the Registry was instructed to entertain the petition without insisting on a delay condonation application. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open, and no decision was made on the merits of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty.
The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax matters. The assessee had filed the requisite Forms 1 & 2 under Section 4 of this Act on 28.03.2021. In light of the assessee availing the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had filed the necessary forms. The Department was directed to process the application at the earliest. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left undecided.
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court had been increased to Rs.1 crore by this circular, and the tax effect in the present case was less than this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were expressly left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, as per the submissions made by the Revenue citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 crore and that the tax effect in this case was less than the threshold. The substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had opted for this scheme, had been issued Form-3 on 04.03.2021, and sought permission to withdraw the appeals. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that appeals admitted on substantial questions of law can be dismissed as withdrawn if the parties opt for a tax dispute resolution scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, and the assessee seeks withdrawal.
The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court followed its own previous judgment dated 26.02.2021 in Tax Case Appeal Nos. 343 to 345 and 347 of 2014, which had decided the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel conceded that the present appeals were covered by the Supreme Court decision in CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) and a prior High Court judgment in T.C.A.Nos.680 & 681 of 2011, which were against the Revenue. Therefore, the questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, following established precedents. The operative direction was to allow the Tax Case Appeals.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and an order was passed on December 23, 2020. In light of this subsequent event, the Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on the Vivad Se Vishwas declaration was not in their favour. If such a prayer for restoration was made, the Registry was directed to entertain it without requiring a condonation of delay application and place it before the appropriate Division Bench. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with this liberty, and the substantial questions of law were left open. No decision was made on the merits of the questions raised.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below this threshold. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without deciding the substantial questions of law framed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued because the tax effect was less than the increased monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for High Court appeals. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration due to subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, for the resolution of disputed tax. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had filed the requisite Forms 1 and 2 under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and sought permission to withdraw the Tax Case Appeal. Recording this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court directed the Department to process the application at the earliest and communicate the decision to the assessee. Liberty was granted to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on the declaration filed under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain the restoration prayer without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not make any findings on the merits of the substantial questions of law framed, nor did it provide any reasoning or ratio decidendi for those questions. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial question of law. The Court was informed that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had been issued Form-3 on December 21, 2020. Consequently, the learned counsel for the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In light of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the expenditure by the High Court, nor was any ratio decidendi established for future cases concerning the deductibility of such expenses. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that it was not necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee had filed the requisite Forms 1 & 2 under Section 4 of the Act on 31.12.2020. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Department was directed to process the application at the earliest. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. The substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019 of the CBDT. The court noted that the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued because the tax effect was below the increased monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without deciding the substantial question of law. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. The Court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which provided for the resolution of disputed tax. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued with Form – 3 under the said Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law, the reasoning, and the ratio decidendi are not recorded as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the Department had issued Form-3 on 27.01.2021. Since Form-3 was issued to the assessee, the Court held that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeals. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeals were disposed of. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the trademark commission, trademark license fees, corporate guarantee, and Section 14A disallowance by the Tribunal were not reviewed or adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on the property acquired in exchange for relinquishing tenancy rights, following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, thereby answering the first substantial question of law against the Revenue. For the second issue, the Tribunal rightly granted relief to the assessee regarding depreciation on non-compete fee, considering the consistent favourable treatment in earlier assessment years and the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, answering the second substantial question of law against the Revenue. For the third and fourth issues concerning the excess net book value on amalgamation, the Court held that Section 28(iv) is not applicable as the transaction was capital in nature and not arising from business or profession in the manner contemplated by the section. It relied on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including its own in CIT Vs. Stads Ltd., and distinguished the Aries Advertising case. The Tribunal was found to be right in granting relief, answering the third and fourth substantial questions of law against the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The Court noted that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, by filing Forms 1 & 2. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on this ground, with the Department directed to process the application at the earliest. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain a Miscellaneous Petition for Restoration without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court held that the questions of law were squarely covered by the ratio laid down in its own previous judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Aztec Auto (P.) Ltd. [2020] 119 taxmann.com 215 (Madras). This judgment, in turn, relied on the Division Bench decision in Brakes India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which was upheld by the Supreme Court through the dismissal of the Revenue's Special Leave Petition. Consequently, the High Court found that the law was settled in favor of the assessee regarding the entitlement to additional depreciation, including the balance benefit in a subsequent year if the asset was used for less than 180 days in the earlier year. The High Court decided the questions of law against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee. The Tax Case Appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed by the assessee. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had already been issued Form-3 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the transfer pricing issues raised by the assessee, and the Tribunal's order was not affirmed or reversed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. Consequently, the assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The High Court, in view of this submission, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The specific findings of the ITAT on the classification of income as business income or capital gains, and the reasoning behind it, were not addressed by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, as submitted by the Revenue. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The substantial questions of law framed were expressly left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT on the merits of the questions of law were not discussed or decided by the High Court in this order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, in light of the submissions made by the Revenue concerning CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 crore by the said circular, and the tax effect in this case was below that threshold. The substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these cases was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT regarding Section 40A(3) were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue. The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. In light of these submissions, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was expressly left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the Circular, for hearing and decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the low tax effect, as indicated by the Revenue's submission and the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The court noted that the tax effect was below the threshold limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was expressly left undecided. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders had been passed in Form No. 3. In light of this subsequent event, the Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favour. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was directed to entertain it without requiring a condonation of delay application. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with this liberty, and the substantial question of law was left open. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the assessees had filed declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that orders had been passed in Form No. 3. In light of this subsequent event, the Court granted liberty to the assessees to restore these appeals if the ultimate decision on their declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act was not in their favour. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was directed to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application. The appeals were disposed of with this liberty, and consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. No costs were awarded.