Loading High Court cases…
565 orders · Page 8 of 12
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was below the enhanced 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 Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a petition for restoration of 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 specific findings on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated due to the dismissal on procedural grounds.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of 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 as the tax effect was below the enhanced monetary limit for appeals to the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed by the Revenue were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue 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 imposed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal 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 in the future. No costs were imposed.
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the ITAT. The Court found that the ITAT had followed its earlier decision in Kanhaiyalal & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO, which had been set aside in another identical matter, Commissioner of Income Tax vs Manish D.Jain (HUF) [(2020) 122 taxmann.com 180 (Madras)]. The Court noted that in the Manish D.Jain (HUF) case, it had faulted the Tribunal for remanding the matter when the AO and CIT(A) had conducted detailed inquiries and arrived at specific findings. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal, as the last fact-finding authority, has a legal obligation to record correct findings of fact and that the power to remand should be exercised on judicial principles. The Court held that there was no material necessitating the remand and that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the order of the CIT(A) was restored.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the increased monetary limit for appeals to the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. 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, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated due to the dismissal on procedural grounds.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Revenue submitted that it was not pursuing the appeal due to the Low Tax Effect, citing 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 below this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law framed were left open. 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court followed its previous decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. M/s. Tidel Park Ltd. and Marg Ltd. Vs. CIT. In these precedents, the High Court had already decided the substantial question of law against the Revenue. Therefore, the present appeal was dismissed on the same grounds. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue was answered against the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no costs awarded. The specific finding of the Tribunal on the quantum of disallowance was implicitly upheld by dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 21.2.2021 and was awaiting orders. In light of this subsequent event, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the declaration in accordance with 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 the declaration was not in their favour. The Court stated that if such a prayer for restoration was made, the Registry would entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application. 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's learned Senior Standing Counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below that threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a petition to restore the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court addressed each substantial question of law. Regarding question 1, the Court held that the assessee was precluded from raising the contention regarding the jurisdiction of the officer to issue the notice for rectification, as the assessee had not challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to exercise powers under Section 154 initially and had participated in the proceedings. The Court found that the entire matter was analyzed on facts and a finding was rendered, affirming the Tribunal's decision. Thus, substantial question of law No. 1 was answered against the assessee. For questions 2 and 3, the Court held that there was no summary rejection of the assessee's plea for TNMM; rather, findings of fact were recorded and affirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal correctly held that the assessee, having adopted CUP as the MAM in its TP study, could not seek substitution with another method as it would lead to reopening of assessment. Therefore, substantial questions of law 2 and 3 were answered against the assessee. Regarding question 4, the Court found that this issue was elaborately dealt with by the TPO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The same was rejected. For question 5, the Court noted that the assessee itself had requested the Tribunal to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication, and the Revenue did not object. Therefore, the assessee was precluded from contending that the Tribunal erred in remanding the issue. Thus, substantial question of law 5 was rejected. The appeal was dismissed, and all substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant-assessee.
The High Court held that the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law. The Court noted that the ITAT's order was based entirely on factual considerations placed before it. The Tribunal had concluded that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the replacement of machinery as capital in nature and disallowing the assessee's claim. The Court found that the ITAT's decision was consistent with its own findings in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which were purely factual. Therefore, the thin line of difference sought to be pointed out by the Revenue did not constitute a substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 28.12.2020 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 ultimate decision on their declaration was not in their favour. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left undecided. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty, and no costs were imposed.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders were passed on 06.1.2021. In light of this subsequent event, the Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on their declaration under the 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. The substantial questions of law were expressly left undecided. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty, and no costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed all four appeals filed by the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to 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 tax effect in each of these cases was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were expressly left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a petition for restoration of the appeals if the tax effect in any case 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 filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's learned Senior Standing Counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the CBDT. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below that threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a petition for restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, for hearing and decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the stipulated limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed by the Revenue was left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a petition for 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 disposed of the tax case appeals with liberty granted to the assessee to restore them if the ultimate decision on their declaration filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not in their favour. The Court stated that if such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain it without requiring a condonation of delay application and place it before the appropriate Division Bench. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open and not decided on merits. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeals with the aforementioned liberty, and no costs were awarded.
The High Court held that the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation. The Court clarified that while the assessee's primary business is manufacturing Pet Bottles, the generation of power through windmills is inextricably connected to this business. The assessee is mandated to feed the generated power into the grid of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and pursuant to the agreement, a credit is given for the energy consumed. This process clearly indicates that the assessee is engaged in the generation of power, which is fed into the grid for distribution. The Court relied on its own decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai Vs. VTM Ltd. [(2009) 319 ITR 336], which held that Section 32(1)(iia) does not require the new machinery to have operational connectivity to the article or thing already being manufactured. The Court also cited CIT Vs. Texmo Precision Castings [(2010) 321 ITR 481] and CIT Vs. Hi Tech Arai Ltd. [(2010) 321 ITR 471] as supporting the assessee's case. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court disposed of the appeals without deciding the substantial questions of law. The Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the Competent Authority was directed to process the application/declaration under the Act and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the ultimate decision on their declaration was not in their favour. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was to entertain it without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial questions of law were expressly left undecided.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and Form No. 3 was issued on 23.12.2020. In light of this subsequent event, the Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on their declaration under the scheme is not in their favour. If such a prayer is made, the Registry is directed to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application. The substantial questions of law framed were left open. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty, and no costs were awarded.
The High Court disposed of the tax case appeal by granting the assessee liberty to restore the appeal in the event the ultimate decision taken on the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry is directed to entertain the petition for restoration without insisting on a condonation of delay application. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for consideration were left undecided. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether SARs are taxable under 'salaries', a capital receipt, or a capital asset with no cost of acquisition. No costs were awarded.
The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the ITAT's order. The Court noted that the ITAT had remanded the matter to the AO based on its earlier decision in Kanhaiyalal & Sons (HUF), without adjudicating the substantial questions of law raised by both parties. The Court referred to its own decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Manish D.Jain (HUF), which faulted the ITAT for remanding matters where detailed inquiries had been conducted by the AO and the CIT(A) had rendered factual findings. The Court found that the ITAT had not considered the grounds raised by the assessee, including the violation of principles of natural justice due to the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal for want of prosecution. Therefore, the High Court remanded the matter back to the ITAT to consider the appeal afresh on merits, including the grounds raised by the assessee and other issues that may be canvassed. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration/undertaking 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 the assessee liberty to restore the appeals if the ultimate decision on the declaration filed 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. The appeals were disposed of with this liberty, and consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the penalty proceedings themselves were not adjudicated upon due to the disposal of the appeals based on the subsequent scheme.
The High Court held that while the Revenue's general proposition regarding the binding nature of decisions from the same High Court is correct, there was a significant difference in this case. The decision of the High Court of Karnataka was in the assessee's own case concerning the correctness of the provision made for warranty. The Court noted that these transactions were identical and the assessee had consistently followed the same method for several assessment years, a fact acknowledged by both the High Court of Karnataka and the Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal and the CIT(A) had rightly held that the assessee followed a scientific method and complied with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. The Court found no good grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court found that while foundational facts might have been on record, they were not canvassed in the appropriate form before the Assessing Officer, preventing a decision on merits. Despite this, the Court was satisfied that an issue arose for consideration. Therefore, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits. The Court acknowledged the submissions made and directed the Assessing Officer to consider them. The substantial question of law on which the appeal was admitted was left open. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, with the matter being remitted to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Consequently, 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. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain the restoration request without requiring a condonation of delay application. Due to this subsequent event and the liberty granted, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open and not adjudicated 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 appellant/assessee informed the Court that the assessee had been issued with Form-3 on 11.01.2021 and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of this submission, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court, in its order dated March 9, 2021, did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to the 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 this case was less than the threshold limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on account of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were expressly left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a petition to restore 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 disposed of the appeal with liberty granted to the assessee to restore it if the decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favor. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left undecided. The court did not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the case, nor did it make any operative directions regarding the tax liability, disallowances, or stock valuation. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is the procedure for disposing of appeals when a subsequent settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas is invoked, allowing for restoration if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable. No costs were awarded.
The High Court allowed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that a Division Bench of the same High Court, to which one of the judges was a party, had rendered a judgment in the assessee's own case in TCA No. 306 of 2019 dated 06.06.2019. Following this precedent, the High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the ITAT and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to be heard and decided afresh. The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open for fresh adjudication by the Tribunal. No costs were awarded.
The High Court disposed of the appeals in light of the subsequent event of the assessee filing declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Orders had been passed in Form No.3 on 20.1.2021 and 25.1.2021. The Court granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeals if the ultimate decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not in their favor. If such a prayer was made, the Registry was directed to entertain it without requiring a petition for condonation of delay. The substantial questions of law were left open. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of with the aforementioned liberty, and the connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the questions of law were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the disposal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and orders had been passed in Form No.3. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of with liberty granted to the assessee to restore them if the ultimate decision under the Scheme was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was directed to entertain restoration petitions without insisting on condonation of delay. As a result of this disposal, the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were left undecided. The judgment does not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the reassessment validity, taxability of interest income, or allowability of expenditure, as these issues were not adjudicated.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeals were 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 these cases was below this threshold, the appeals were dismissed on this ground. The substantial questions of law were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect exceeded the threshold. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law. The Court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had availed this scheme and had been issued Form-3 on 09.02.2021. Consequently, the Court found that nothing further survived for adjudication in the appeal. The appeal was disposed of on this basis, without deciding the merits of the substantial questions of law. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the Tribunal on the issues of depreciation, licence fee, Rule 8D, and Section 14A are not detailed in this judgment as the appeal was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The High Court, in light of the submissions made by the Revenue's counsel, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a petition to restore the appeal if the tax effect is found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing for a decision on merits. Therefore, no finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The High Court disposed of the Tax Case Appeal with liberty granted to the assessee to restore the appeal in the event the ultimate decision on their declaration filed under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not in their favour. If such a prayer is made, the Registry is directed to entertain it without insisting on a condonation of delay application. The substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open. Consequently, no decision was rendered on the merits of the substantial questions of law. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with the aforementioned liberty, and the substantial questions of law were expressly left undecided.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on 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 appeal was dismissed on this ground. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a petition to restore the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the corpus donation and the addition of Rs. 42,25,283/- were not adjudicated by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the CBDT, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed by the Revenue were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a petition to restore the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders concerning the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits. The Court noted that the core issue of whether the transaction required tax deduction at source and whether the payments were sums chargeable to tax under Section 195(1) was not adequately addressed by the authorities or the Tribunal. The Court referred to CBDT Circulars No. 02/2014 and 03/2015, which clarified that in cases of non-deduction of tax, the Assessing Officer should determine the appropriate proportion of the sum chargeable to tax. The Court found that the assessee had failed to properly present its case and arguments before the lower authorities. Therefore, a fresh factual examination by the Assessing Officer was necessary to determine the taxability of the remittance and then apply the law. The substantial questions of law were left open.
The High Court held that there was no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Court found that the CIT(A) had rightly relied on the decision of the Hyderabad Tribunal in M/s. NCS Distilleries P. Ltd., which in turn relied on decisions of the Chandigarh and Ahmedabad Tribunals. These decisions held that the written-off amount of CENVAT credit (which included excise duty paid on raw materials and adjustable against duty on finished products) was allowable as an expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act in the year the manufacturing activities ceased or when the credit could no longer be utilized. The Court rejected the Revenue's contention that the facts were distinguishable, stating that the assessee could not avail the set-off due to the operation of law (discontinuation of excise duty on edible oils). The Court also noted that a separate order from the CESTAT dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding wrongful availment of service tax credit further fortified the assessee's stand. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue.
The High Court held that there was no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Court considered the short issue of whether the assessee followed the test laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. The judgment notes that the CIT(A) found that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions for deductibility of market-to-market losses, and the Tribunal, being satisfied with the CIT(A)'s findings, dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals, answering the substantial questions of law against the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The High Court held that the previous order of the ITAT in ITA.No.5/Mds/2007 dated 17.10.2008, which directed the AO to grant credit for the sale value of jewellery at Rs.96,23,565/- against the investment in money lending business, was binding on the Revenue as no appeal was filed against it. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, correctly noted this fact and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Therefore, the High Court found no good grounds to interfere with the ITAT's order. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the assessee had provided an explanation and submitted supporting documents, including returns of income and bank statements, which appeared to have influenced the CIT(A). While the Revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s order lacked sufficient reasoning, the High Court observed that the assessee had indeed offered an explanation. Considering the assessee is an individual and an explanation was provided, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of the explanation offered by the assessee regarding the alleged cash credit of Rs. 1,02,06,929/-. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The order of the Tribunal was set aside.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that identical substantial questions of law had been answered against the Revenue in previous cases, specifically citing the decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Enmas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (TCA.No.895 of 2019 dated 08.10.2020). This judgment, in turn, followed earlier decisions of the same High Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. T. Abdul Wahid & Co. and The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions India Ltd. These earlier decisions had considered the arguments regarding Section 2(22)(e) and the Supreme Court's doubt on the Ankitech case. By following these precedents, the High Court held that the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue had to be rejected. The substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue. 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 been issued 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 finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and no operative directions were issued regarding the disputed income or the principle of mutuality.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee circulated a letter seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. Recording this statement, the Tax Case Appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on depreciation, pre-operative expenses, and Section 80IB deductions were not reviewed or adjudicated by the High Court in this order.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on subsequent developments presented by the assessee through an affidavit. The affidavit stated that Ms. Sandhya Mulchandani had repaid Rs. 2 Crores in FY 2019-2020 and Rs. 3 Crores in FY 2020-2021, and these recovered amounts were offered as income under Section 41 of the Act. The assessee argued that since the recovered amounts were taxed in the subsequent years, the Revenue could not seek to disallow the losses claimed in AY 2012-13. The Court agreed that in light of these subsequent events, the order of the CIT(A) should be sustained. The substantial questions of law were left open as the appeal was dismissed on the ground of subsequent events. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court noted that the assessee had opted to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and orders were passed on 30.12.2020. The Court referred to its own decision in CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] which had answered an identical issue in favour of the Revenue. However, in light of the subsequent development of the assessee opting for the scheme, the Court granted liberty to the assessee to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on their declaration under the 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. The Tax Case Appeal was disposed of with this liberty, and no costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the increased monetary threshold for 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 seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.
The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty to the assessee to restore it if the decision under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not in their favour. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left undecided. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with the aforementioned liberty, and no costs were awarded. The judgment did not provide any findings or reasoning on the merits of the substantial questions of law, as they were expressly left open.