Loading High Court cases…
248 orders · Page 4 of 5
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold prescribed by Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. Based on instructions received, the counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Court was further informed that the withdrawal was exclusively on account of the monetary limit and did not signify any concession on the Department's stance on the merits of the case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court held that the non-mentioning of the Document Identification Number (DIN) in the notices issued by the revenue renders such notices invalid. The Court relied on its own prior judgment delivered on 10.06.2025 in T.C.A.Nos.80 to 82 of 2025 (Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Chennai – 600 034 v. Sutherland Global Services Inc.). In that judgment, the Court had ruled that non-compliance with CBDT Circular No.19/2019, dated 14.08.2019, specifically regarding the mandatory inclusion of DIN, would make the communication invalid. The revenue's counsel conceded that the notices in the present appeals were issued without DIN. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed. No order as to costs was made, and interim applications were closed.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Chief Justice and a Judge, considered the request made by the assessee's counsel. The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that the dispute had been resolved under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Court granted the leave to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The judgment does not discuss any substantive legal issues or the merits of the original dispute before the Tribunal.
The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had proceeded with bias, as evidenced by the opening sentence of his order which stated a general assumption about charitable institutions running educational institutions for profit by collecting capitation fees. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel conceded that no donor had filed an affidavit stating that money given as donation was, in fact, capitation fee. Furthermore, the High Court referred to its own previous decision in TCA Nos.1052 to 1058 of 2014, dated March 24, 2015, which had accepted the Tribunal's finding that the assessee was carrying out genuine educational activities and there was no evidence of accepting capitation fees. That order had attained finality. Therefore, the rejection of the Section 80G approval application based on a surmise could not be accepted. The High Court concluded that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court observed that the subject matter of the present appeal for assessment year 2014-2015 was covered by its earlier order dated 10.6.2025 in T.C.A.No.46 of 2025, which dealt with the same assessee for assessment year 2015-2016. Therefore, for the same reasons as stated in the earlier order, the current appeal was also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, with no order as to costs. No issues were expressly left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the precedent.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Court noted that the assessee had decided to settle the matter under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs. The Tribunal's order dated 31.10.2018 was not adjudicated upon merits. The principle that can be cited is that appeals can be withdrawn if the assessee opts for a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas, leading to dismissal of the appeals without prejudice to the settlement.
The High Court held that the ITAT's findings were based on factual evidence that the lower authorities had not considered. The ITAT had rightly accepted that the land was classified as agricultural in revenue records, was situated 8 kms from the nearest municipality, and that agricultural activities were being carried out. The ITAT also considered Electricity Board receipts showing subsidy, a land test report detailing soil content and potential crops, and the village population. Crucially, the lower authorities had not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the assessee's submissions, instead relying on the commercial potential of the area to assume the land was acquired for real estate business. The ITAT arrived at a factual finding that the assessee had established the land as agricultural, and the revenue failed to rebut this with adverse material. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose, and the ITAT's order was upheld. The additions deleted by the ITAT were confirmed.
The High Court, upon being informed by the counsel for the Revenue that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limit in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023, and that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. No decision on the merits of the original appeal was made. The Court also directed that CMP No.600 of 2020, pertaining to Sales Tax, be placed before the appropriate Bench. There was no order as to costs.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, by its order dated June 19, 2025, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted the submission by the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated November 2, 2023, and that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The counsel further clarified that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, and consequently, had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The counsel further clarified that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and did not concede the Department's position on the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the withdrawal. No order as to costs was made, and the interim application was also closed.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, considered the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. The counsel for the appellant (Revenue) informed the Court that the monetary limit of the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, and therefore, had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and did not involve any concession on the Department's position. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, considered the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. The counsel informed the court that the monetary limit of the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No.09/2024, and based on instructions, the appeal was to be withdrawn. The court noted that the withdrawal was specifically due to the monetary limit and not an admission on the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel, Mr. Narayanaswamy, stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limit in Circular No.09/2024. Consequently, the counsel, having received instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court acknowledged that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and not an admission on the merits of the Department's position. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute before the Tribunal, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground. No issue was left undecided, as the appeal itself was withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold specified in Circular No.09/2024. Consequently, the Revenue, having received instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court acknowledged that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's position on the merits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. No issues were decided on merit, and no ratio decidendi can be extracted from this order.
The High Court noted that the assessee had died and that efforts to trace the legal heirs had been unsuccessful. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment stated that there would be no order as to costs. The Court also provided a direction that if the legal heirs of the assessee become aware of the pending appeal, they may approach the Court to have the appeal restored. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original appeal before the ITAT was decided.
The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limit in Circular No.09/2024. The counsel further stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal for this reason, and that the withdrawal was without conceding the stand of the Department. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. This withdrawal was based on the fact that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated September 17, 2024. The counsel explicitly stated that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and not an admission or concession on the Department's stand. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made, and the interim application was closed.
The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. The counsel further indicated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal on this basis. The Court acknowledged that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and not an admission of the Department's stand. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court found that the ITAT had set aside the assessment orders because the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) were invalid due to the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN). The High Court observed that the facts in these appeals were similar to those in previous appeals (T.C.A.Nos.80, 81 and 82 of 2025) which it had decided on 10.06.2025. In that prior judgment, the Court had confirmed the ITAT's decision to set aside the assessment orders on the DIN issue. Therefore, the High Court held that the reasons assigned for dismissing the earlier appeals would be applicable to the instant appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court noted that the appellant (Revenue) stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold prescribed by Circular No. 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the counsel for the Revenue informed the Court that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court was also informed that the withdrawal was based solely on the monetary limit and did not involve conceding the Department's position. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and consequently, the interim applications were closed.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted the statement made by the Revenue's counsel that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, and that counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal on this basis. The counsel further clarified that the withdrawal was solely due to the monetary limit and not an admission on the merits of the Department's position. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, acknowledging the submission made by the Revenue's counsel, ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.09/2024, and therefore, sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The counsel further clarified that the withdrawal was purely due to the monetary limit and did not imply any concession on the Department's stance on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment was decided.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras considered the submission made by the counsel for the appellant (revenue). The counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and not on merits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute before the Tribunal, as the appeal was withdrawn procedurally. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the appeal itself was disposed of.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. K.R. Shriram and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, considered the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. The counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Based on this submission, the counsel requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and did not signify an acceptance of the Department's position on the substantive issues. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court noted that both parties agreed that Question No.3, concerning the deletion of additions for belated payment of employees' contribution to provident fund, was covered by the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 (448 ITR 518) in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, Question No.3 was answered in favour of the Revenue. The appeal was admitted on Questions 1, 2, and 4. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on Questions 1, 2, and 4 due to the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.09/2024. The Court declined to reverse the decision on Question No.3 despite a submission regarding low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn concerning Questions 1, 2, and 4. For Question No.3, since the assessee accepted the Apex Court's decision, the Revenue was directed to immediately calculate the amount payable and recover it from the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the withdrawal meant no decision on merits for questions 1, 2, and 4.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the Revenue sought leave to withdraw the appeal, clarifying that this withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and not an admission on the merits. The Court found no reason to object to this request. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case were not discussed or decided by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court noted the submission by the revenue's counsel that the monetary limit involved in the appeals was below the prescribed limit as per Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. Based on this submission and the instructions received by the counsel to withdraw the appeals, the Court ordered the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be due to the monetary limit and not an admission on the merits of the Department's position. No decision was made on the substantive issues of the appeals. The Court also stated that there would be no order as to costs.
The High Court held that the DRP proceedings, like other communications mentioned in paragraph 2 of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, fall within the scope of the circular, which mandates the generation and quoting of a DIN. The court noted that the Revenue conceded that a DIN had to be generated for DRP proceedings. The court relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation, which held that communications without DIN, unless regularized as per paragraph 5 of the circular, are invalid and deemed never to have been issued. The court found that the DRP proceedings did not contain a valid DIN and that the assessment order also lacked a DIN, with no explanation offered by the Revenue. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid for both reasons. The substantial questions of law were answered accordingly, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the DRP directions were invalid because they did not comply with the mandatory requirements of CBDT Circular No.19/2019. Specifically, the DIN communicated for the DRP proceedings dated 19.12.2022 was found to have been generated on 21.12.2022, indicating interpolation and a false claim by the revenue. The court noted that the DIN written by hand in the DRP proceedings and the DIN communicated via the intimation letter were different from the DIN purportedly generated for the DRP proceedings. Furthermore, the circular required prior written approval from the Chief Commissioner/Director General for manual issuance, which was not brought to the court's notice. Since the DRP directions were invalid, the consequential assessment orders passed under Section 144C(13) were also unsustainable. The ITAT's findings were upheld. The court also imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellant to be paid to the PM CARES Fund.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limit in Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 and requested permission to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be based on the monetary limit and not on merits, meaning the Department did not concede its stand. Consequently, the Court ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be only due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. The Court accepted this submission and proceeded to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. There were no operative directions issued regarding remand or deletion, and no issue was left undecided as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel stated that the monetary limit involved in these appeals was below the prescribed limit in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. The counsel further stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeals for this reason, and that the withdrawal was without conceding the Department's stand. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No issue was expressly left undecided as the appeals were withdrawn before any substantive decision on the merits.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appeal was to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel informed the Court that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court further noted that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and without conceding the stand of the Department. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. The interim applications were also closed.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar, stated that the monetary limit of the appeal was below the threshold stipulated in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. Consequently, the counsel, acting on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The court was informed that this withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and did not imply any concession on the Department's stance. As a result, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No order was made as to costs.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the Revenue stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. Based on instructions received, the counsel sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court was informed that the withdrawal was only due to the monetary limit and not an admission on the part of the Department regarding its stand. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT, as the appeal was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that the monetary limit involved in these appeals was below the limit prescribed in Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023. Based on instructions received, the counsel sought to withdraw the appeals. The Court was informed that the withdrawal was solely on account of the monetary limit and did not involve any concession on the Department's stance on the merits of the case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The interim application filed in connection with these appeals was also disposed of.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the appeals were being withdrawn due to the monetary limit prescribed by a recent circular, specifically Circular F.No.390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023, which stipulated that appeals involving amounts below a certain threshold should not be pursued. The counsel clarified that this withdrawal was based solely on the monetary limit and did not involve any concession on the Department's substantive stand on the merits of the case. Therefore, no decision on the merits of the ITAT's orders was made by the High Court. The Court ordered no order as to costs.
The High Court, in its order delivered by the Chief Justice, stated that it was not inclined to interfere with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain whether the entire amount of Rs. 6.42 Crore represented only loan creditors. The Revenue's counsel acknowledged this direction but expressed dissatisfaction with the ITAT's additional finding that if the entire amount pertained to sundry creditors, it could not be subject to income tax. The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer was yet to ascertain the facts. Consequently, the High Court kept all rights and contentions open and disposed of the appeal accordingly, stating there would be no order as to costs. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal, leaving the factual ascertainment to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the limit prescribed in Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024, and consequently, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The counsel clarified that the withdrawal was solely based on the monetary limit and not an admission of the Department's stand being incorrect. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs. No specific issue regarding the ITAT's order was decided on merits.
The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income Tax exercised his power under Section 263 of the Act in an arbitrary manner. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire with 34 questions and received replies from the assessee. The assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed after this process, implying that the issues raised in the questionnaire were considered by the AO. The Court relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Aroni Commercials Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1), which held that once a query is raised during assessment proceedings and the assessee replies to it, it is presumed that the query was considered by the AO and accepted. The Court found it unnecessary for the assessment order to contain specific references or discussions on every query raised, as long as the AO had applied his mind. Therefore, the CIT's action of invoking Section 263 based on the same issues was considered a 'change of opinion' and not a valid ground for revision. The impugned order of the CIT was quashed, and the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The dismissal was based on the Court's finding in T.C.A.No.112 of 2016, which was also dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal, with no order as to costs. The reasoning provided is that the present appeal stands dismissed in view of the finding in the prior appeal. No specific issue was decided on merits in this judgment, as it was disposed of based on the earlier decision. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior appeal on a similar matter has been dismissed, a subsequent appeal will also be dismissed on the same grounds.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sunder Mohan, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The decision was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the monetary limit of the appeal fell below the prescribed threshold as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The counsel explicitly stated that the withdrawal was solely on account of this monetary limit and not an admission of the Department's position. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The Court ordered no costs. The specific findings of the ITAT or the grounds of appeal were not adjudicated upon.
The High Court noted that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the prescribed limit in Circular No.09/2024. Consequently, the Revenue's counsel, acting on instructions, sought to withdraw the appeal. The Court acknowledged that the withdrawal was based on the monetary limit and not on merits or concession of the Department's stance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made. The specific findings of the ITAT or the High Court on any substantive issue are not recorded as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by the Bombay High Court's judgment in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court reasoned that the expenditure/debt should be treated as having been incurred for the purpose of business and directly relatable to the business of the assessee, especially when it was for commercial expediency to preserve and protect the value of its goodwill and that of its group companies. The Court emphasized that the decision to treat a debt as bad or as a business loss is a commercial decision of the assessee, and the burden is on the Assessing Officer to provide cogent reasons to disallow it, which was not done. The Court found that the assessee's action of pledging shares for its group company's loan was for business expediency. Therefore, the amount written off as bad debts was eligible for deduction as a business loss. The questions of law were answered in the affirmative. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax) stated that the monetary limit involved in the appeal was below the threshold prescribed by Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the counsel informed the Court that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was explicitly stated to be only due to the monetary limit and not an admission on the merits of the Department's case. Therefore, the Court ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The Court agreed with the ITAT that the facts of the present case were different from the Wipro Limited case. In the Wipro case, the assessee had taken a different stand during assessment proceedings, seeking to withdraw an initial claim and carry forward losses. In contrast, the assessee in this case claimed the deduction under Section 10AA in its original return filed within the prescribed time, with Form 56F being filed approximately 50 days later. The Court noted that there was no provision explicitly barring the filing of Form 56F after the due date, and the delay had, in effect, been condoned. The Court found that the assessee had fulfilled the substantial requirement and the procedural requirement, with only a minor technical breach in the procedural aspect. Both the CIT(A) and ITAT had opined that the delay in filing Form 56F was not fatal to the substantive claim. The ITAT also considered that the same claim had been allowed to the assessee for six consecutive assessment years. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The Court found that the assessee's primary activity was microfinance, which involved lending operations and earning commissions, and this was not incidental to its stated charitable objectives. The Court noted that the income was neither from property nor voluntary contributions to be exempted under Sections 11 & 12, nor from a business incidental to the trust's object. The Court also found that the amendment to the definition of 'Charitable Purpose' by the Finance Act, 2008, though effective from 01.04.2009, was misplaced in its application by the Tribunal as it was relevant for income earned during the Previous Assessment Year 2009-2010, assessable during Assessment Year 2010-2011, and not for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 in question. The Court concluded that the assessee could not claim exemption under Section 11(1) or Section 11(4A) of the IT Act, citing the Supreme Court decision in New Noble Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal in Kurinji Social Welfare Society and Socio Economic Development Association were held irrelevant, and the ruling in Honda Siel Power Products Limited could not be applied. The claim of the assessee was rightly rejected by the Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court held that the Block Assessment Order dated 28.03.2002 was passed within the time prescribed by Section 158BE(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that the search, which involved prohibitory orders and continued over several dates, concluded on 02.03.2000, making the assessment order timely. The Court noted that Explanation 2 to Section 158BE clarifies that the authorization is executed on the conclusion of the search as recorded in the last panchanama. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in VLS Finance Limited, which supported considering subsequent searches for limitation computation. Since the ITAT had not touched upon the merits of the case, the High Court set aside the ITAT's impugned order and remitted the appeals back to the ITAT for deciding the case on merits. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue. The ITAT was directed to dispose of the appeals expeditiously.
The High Court held that the income derived from the sale of 'Button Mushrooms' cultivated in a factory under controlled conditions does not fall within the purview of 'agricultural income' as defined in Section 2(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of Section 10(1). The Court found that the process of growing mushrooms in trays using artificial climate conditioning is closely associated with production and manufacturing, not basic agricultural operations. The Court distinguished the present case from the Special Bench decision in DCIT Vs. M/s.Inventaa Industries Private Limited, stating that the Special Bench's decision could not be applied to the facts of this case. The Court concluded that none of the situations contemplated under Section 2(1A)(c) of the Act were satisfied. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were answered against the respondent-assessee and in favour of the appellant-Income Tax Department. The appeals were allowed.
The High Court addressed the substantial questions of law. For AY 2006-2007 (T.C.A.No.294 of 2018), the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Income Tax Department, aligning with the decisions in "Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise" and "Goetze (India) Ltd.". This implies that the capital gains were correctly computed or taxed in AY 2006-07 as per the Assessee's computation. For Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 (T.C.A.Nos.295 to 299 of 2018), the substantial questions of law were answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Income Tax Department. The Court held that the Assessee was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB(10) for these years due to the restriction in Section 80AC, as no claim was made in the return of income. The Court noted that while the claim under Section 139(1) might be procedural and Section 80AC directory, such a declaration would require a challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution, not under Section 260A. The Assessee was granted liberty to pursue such a challenge in a separate proceeding. Consequently, the Assessee's appeals for these years were dismissed for statistical purposes, and the Department's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with liberty to revive them upon a successful collateral challenge to Section 80AC.