Loading High Court cases…
248 orders · Page 5 of 5
The High Court set aside the orders of the ITAT. The Court found that the ITAT's decisions were based on the Madras High Court's ruling in Rohini Hotels (Madras) Limited, which had been reversed by the Supreme Court in Giridhar G. Yadalam's case. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'has been constructed' does not include a building that is not fully constructed or is in the process of construction. The Court further noted that the purpose of Section 2(ea) was to stimulate productive assets, and the legislature intended to grant exemption for urban vacant land only when a building is fully constructed, not when construction has merely started. In the present case, continuous construction activities were ongoing during the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the land could not be treated as urban vacant land for levying wealth tax. The questions of law were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed.
The High Court recorded the submission of the appellant that they were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore did not wish to pursue the appeals. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeals) relating to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) that the assessee has availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2006-07. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the Tribunal's order dated 31.12.2015 are not discussed or adjudicated upon by the High Court, as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee was availing the ongoing Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and consequently did not wish to pursue the appeals. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed both Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court held that in cases where rectification petitions under Section 154 were filed after the original statement under Section 200A, the delay in filing appeals should be computed from the date of the rectified statement. The Court found merit in the assessee's argument that the cause of action for appeal arises from the final or rectified order. Regarding the delay in filing appeals, the Court differed with the Tribunal's view that the assessee had not acted bonafide. The Court reasoned that the assessee's explanation regarding the divergent views on the levy of interest under Section 234E was not incorrect, and there was nothing to indicate a lack of bonafide. The Court accepted the assessee's computation of delay at 260 days in Tabulation B. Consequently, the High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals and remanded the matters to the Tribunal for hearing on merits. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was availing the ongoing Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore did not wish to pursue the appeals. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case (Appeals) as withdrawn. The Court explicitly left the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs were awarded.
The High Court noted that the Assessee, despite being successful before the ITAT, had settled the outstanding tax liability under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and therefore stated they would not pursue their appeals. In light of this, the Court allowed the Revenue's appeals (TC(A) Nos.72 & 75 of 2023) as settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law were not adjudicated due to the peculiar facts and were returned unanswered. The Assessee's appeals (TC(A) Nos.392 & 395 of 2023) were dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to allow the Revenue's appeals and dismiss the Assessee's appeals.
The High Court addressed the substantial questions of law. The issue concerning reinsurance premium was not pressed and therefore remained unanswered. Regarding the disallowance of IBNR and IBNER provisions, the Court held in favour of the assessee, finding that these provisions had a scientific basis, were determined according to IRDA Regulations, 2002, and actuarial valuations, and were thus allowable. The Court affirmed the ITAT's order of remand concerning the disallowance of payments made to motor vehicle dealers, stating that the matter needed further verification by the Assessing Officer in light of the CESTAT order which was not available during the original assessment. The Court also answered the question regarding profit on sale of investment and disallowance under Section 14A in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee on IBNR/IBNER, profit on sale of investment, and Section 14A, and in favour of the revenue on the disallowance of payments to motor vehicle dealers.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the Tax Case Appeal and had made an endorsement to that effect. Consequently, the High Court allowed the withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the case or the underlying issues that might have been before the ITAT. Therefore, no ratio decidendi can be extracted, and no operative directions beyond dismissing the appeal as withdrawn were issued.
The High Court recorded the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Sowjanya S., that the appellant is availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and consequently does not wish to pursue the appeal. Based on this endorsement, the Tax Case (Appeal) was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also noted that there were no costs awarded and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue was decided on merits, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant to pursue his application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024. No costs were imposed. The decision was based on the assessee's stated action of availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, which rendered the appeal before the High Court infructuous. The court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute that led to the appeal before the ITAT.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that the monetary limit for appeals, as stipulated by recent circulars (Circular No. 5/2024 and 09/2024), was not met. A memo was filed to this effect. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were expressly left open, meaning no finding was rendered on whether the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was justified or whether the payment constituted royalty under Section 9(1)(vi). No costs were awarded.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seeking permission to withdraw the Tax Case Appeal. Based on this submission, the endorsement made in the appeal, and the letter circulated to the Registry, the High Court ordered that the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific grounds for withdrawal or the merits of the original appeal before the Tribunal were not discussed or decided.
The High Court allowed the appeals. The impugned orders of the ITAT dated 24.02.2022 were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass fresh orders in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [Exemptions] vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, reported in 2022 [143] Taxmann.com 278 [SC]. No costs were awarded. The High Court did not decide the merits of the case but rather facilitated a fresh adjudication based on a higher judicial pronouncement.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the availing of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and receipt of Form II, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law are left open. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted the submission by the appellant's counsel regarding availing the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and receiving Form II from the department. Consequently, the Tax Case Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding availing the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open. No costs were imposed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the appeals lacked merit and were liable to be dismissed. The Court found that the assessees had not provided any explanation for the nature and source of acquisition of the seized cash beyond their self-serving declarations of commission income. The Court emphasized that Section 69A requires an explanation that is satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, and a mere declaration without supporting material is insufficient. The fact that the assessees did not respond to the show cause notices indicated indifference. The Court relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Shashi Garg v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that the burden to explain the source of cash deposits lies on the assessee and that implausible justifications expose concocted explanations. Similar views were taken by the Supreme Court in Sadiq Sheikh v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, all substantial questions of law were answered against the appellants.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the appellant (S.V.N. Agro Refineries) sought permission to withdraw the appeal and made an endorsement to that effect. Consequently, the Court, in view of the appellant's request, dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded. The reasoning is solely based on the assessee's decision to withdraw the appeal. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order or any specific issues that might have been raised in the appeal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No costs were imposed. The judgment does not record any specific reasoning beyond acknowledging the appellant's submission and the endorsement for withdrawal. The principle that can be cited is that an appeal can be withdrawn if the assessee has opted for and received benefits under a settlement scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The High Court, in view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) that the amount involved in the appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars No. 5/2024 and 09/2024, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were left open. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings on the taxability of the guarantee fee, the applicability of Article 22 of the India-Korea DTAA, the eligibility for DTAA benefits, the assessee's offer of income as business income, the TDS paid, and the scope of the assessment order are not adjudicated upon by the High Court. The quashing of the Section 263 order by the ITAT also remains unexamined on merits.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Based on this submission, the Court noted that the appellant had availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and Form-II had been issued. Consequently, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeals. The Court, in its order, stated that recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. There was no decision on the merits of the original appeals, as they were withdrawn by the appellant. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, upon being informed by the learned counsels for both sides that the assessee has submitted Form I, and Forms II and III have been received with payment details provided, allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. Liberty was preserved to the department to seek restoration of the appeal if, for any reason, the assessee fails to pay the amount. The specific findings on the merits of the original appeal before the ITAT are not discussed or decided by the High Court, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural basis.
The High Court recorded the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides. It was stated that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024, submitted Form I, and received Form II and Form III, with payment intimation given to the assessee. Consequently, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant department sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court, recording these submissions, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. Liberty was preserved to the department to seek restoration of the appeal if, for any reason, the assessee failed to pay the amount under the scheme.
The High Court recorded the appellant's (assessee's) request to withdraw the appeal, citing their decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. Based on this request, the Court dismissed the tax case appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific terms of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, nor the original dispute that led to the appeal, were discussed or decided upon. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been given the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020 and has also been issued Form-II. Consequently, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court, recording this submission, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on a submission by the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant that the amount involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 5/2024 and 09/2024 dated 15.03.2024 and 17.09.2024, respectively. Consequently, the Court did not decide the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, leaving the substantial questions of law open. No costs were awarded.
The High Court held that the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeal were not to be discarded. The Court found that a bona fide attempt was made by the appellant to explain the delay, and there was no reason for the appellate tribunal to dismiss these reasons. The High Court also noted that the ITAT had observed the appeal to be devoid of merits while dismissing it on the ground of limitation, deeming this an irregularity. Consequently, the High Court was convinced that there were explanations for the delay and no reason to suspect the appellant's bona fides. The petition to condone the delay should not have been dismissed for reasons not germane. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the ITAT's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the ITAT for de novo consideration.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the endorsement made to that effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant to file a petition for restoration in case their application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is not accepted. No costs were awarded. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) and the Memo filed on 17.02.2025, stating that the appellant had opted to avail the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2014-2015, and had already availed the benefit for assessment year 2011-2012. The assessee had also received Form No. 2 from the designated authority. In light of these submissions, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeals. The Court accepted these submissions and accordingly dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn. There was no order as to costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the availing of the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Based on this submission and the endorsement made in the case bundle, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original appeal, as it was withdrawn. The principle that can be cited is that an appeal can be withdrawn if the assessee has opted for a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas and seeks to withdraw the pending litigation.
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the amount involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars 5/2024 and 09/2024. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the substantial questions of law were expressly left open. No costs were awarded.
The High Court, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the appellant had availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024 and received Form II on 23.01.2025, which formed the basis for the withdrawal request. The substantial questions of law that were the subject of the appeal were expressly left open by the Court. No costs were awarded.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on Circular No.9 dated 17.09.2024, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.2 Crores and mandated the withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below this limit. Since the tax effect of this appeal was Rs.1,49,03,440/-, which is less than Rs.2 Crores, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open to be answered in an appropriate case. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The ITAT's decision on the merits of the royalty payment being revenue expenditure was not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court noted that the tax effect of the appeal for assessment year 2014-15 was Rs.1,52,32,280/-, which is less than Rs.2 Crores. The Court referred to Circular No.9 dated 17.09.2024, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.2 Crores and stipulated the withdrawal of appeals with a tax effect below this limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open to be answered in an appropriate case. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The High Court recorded the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Department. The Department expressed its unwillingness to pursue the appeal concerning assessment year 2018-19, citing the low tax effect as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax case appeal as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made, as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.
The High Court recorded the submission of the appellant (Income Tax Department) that it did not wish to pursue the appeal for assessment year 2013-14. The reason cited for withdrawal was the low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal and the connected Miscellaneous Petition as withdrawn. The judgment explicitly stated that the questions of law were left open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The Court recorded the appellant's submission that they have availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and have been issued Form-2 for quantification of arrears. Consequently, the appellant expressed their wish to withdraw the appeal. The Court accepted this submission and accordingly dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The principle derived is that an appeal can be withdrawn if the assessee has opted for and completed the necessary formalities under a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas, provided the scheme's benefits are availed.
The High Court held that the recording of a satisfaction report by the Assessing Officer is a sine qua non for initiating action under Section 153C of the Act. The Court noted that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for the searched person did not contain any whisper about the satisfaction with regard to the other person (the assessee). No separate note was prepared for the assessee, and the language used in the note clearly indicated satisfaction only for initiating proceedings under Section 153A for the searched person. The Court found no such satisfaction recorded pertaining to the assessee. Relying on settled legal propositions from the Apex Court and various High Courts, and a CBDT Circular No. 24/2015 dated 31.12.2015, which directed withdrawal or non-pressing of pending litigation not meeting the Apex Court's guidelines on satisfaction notes, the Court concluded that proceedings under Section 153C could not be invoked and completed without a separate satisfaction note pertaining to the other person. Therefore, the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) and concurred with by the ITAT was in consonance with settled legal propositions. The Court found no infirmity in the ITAT's orders. The appeals were dismissed, and the questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court noted that the appellant had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that Form-2, quantifying the arrears, had been issued and placed on record. Consequently, the appellant's counsel sought the withdrawal of the present appeal. The Court, recording this submission, dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. The principle derived is that if an assessee opts for a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas and fulfills the necessary conditions, they are entitled to withdraw pending appeals, and the court will grant such a request. No specific issue was decided on merits.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel sought withdrawal of the appeal on account of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Court acknowledged the request for withdrawal and, in light of this, did not press the issue of service on the respondent. Consequently, the Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, keeping the questions of law alive for determination in an appropriate future case. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Court recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form-2 dated 23.12.2024 had been issued. Based on this submission, the appellant wished to withdraw the appeal. The Court, in light of this, dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the ITAT had made categoric findings of fact that there was no material on record to substantiate the claim of creditors to the extent of Rs.64,41,942/-, beyond the identity of the creditor who was a Director of the Company. The Tribunal noted that neither the genuineness of the transaction nor the creditworthiness of the creditor was established. The High Court found no reason to intervene in the ITAT's order or reverse its findings of fact. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the addition of Rs.64,41,942/-.
The High Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that Form-2 dated 31.12.2024 had been issued, a copy of which was placed on record. Consequently, the appellant wished to withdraw the appeal. The Court, recording this submission, dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in its judgment dated 20-01-2025, dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. This decision was based on an endorsement made by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B. Thirumalai, who, on instructions from the appellant, stated that the appellant did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, no decision was made on the merits of the case. No costs were awarded.
The High Court recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form-2 for quantification of arrears dated 01.01.2025 has been issued. Consequently, the appellant's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Court, in light of this submission, dismissed the Tax Case (Appeal) as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed all appeals and miscellaneous petitions. Regarding the liability to deduct tax at source on payments to surveyors and commissions for reinsurance premiums (Issues 1 & 2), the Court noted that the Tribunal's findings were based on factual determinations that the brokers acted as facilitators and not as having a business connection or Permanent Establishment in India. The Department failed to produce material to dislodge these findings. The Court also noted that the Department had accepted the assessee's stand for subsequent assessment years (2020-21 onwards), making it inappropriate to argue contrary views for earlier years, citing the principle of consistency from Supreme Court judgments in Berger Paints India Ltd. and Commissioner of Income-tax V. Excel Industries Ltd. The Court distinguished the cases cited by the Revenue. The Court found no substantial question of law arising in the miscellaneous petitions. Therefore, all substantial questions of law admitted were answered in favour of the Assessee, and the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court decided to close the Tax Case (Appeal) without answering the substantial questions of law. The reasoning was that the appeal was filed in 2015, and the respondent company had since been ordered to be liquidated by the NCLT. The Court observed that it was incumbent upon the Income Tax Department to have initiated necessary processes before the Liquidator in a timely manner. Since the company was liquidated, the Court found no reason to keep the appeal pending. No costs were awarded. The substantial questions of law were left unanswered.