Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2019

The High Court held that the matter was no longer res integra and had been concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No.5 of 2016. In that previous case, an identical question was held not to be a substantial question of law. Consequently, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was dismissed. Since the main case was dismissed, any pending Civil Misc. Application also stood disposed of. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the specific grounds regarding the merits of the allowances were not raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, the court did not examine the legality of the remand order.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding it inappropriate to entertain the question of law regarding the remand power when the merits of the allowances were not contested. The decision was limited to the facts of the case and not to be used as a precedent.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the specific grounds regarding the merits of the allowances were not raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, the court did not examine the legality of the remand order.

The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty sought by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any aspect of the matter survive. The reasoning for this decision was solely based on the revenue's submission regarding the low tax effect, which fell below the prescribed monetary limits for pursuing appeals, as per the cited CBDT circulars and letter. The court noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending civil miscellaneous application also stood disposed of. No substantive issues regarding the income tax assessment were decided.

The High Court decided both issues in favour of the Assessee. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that it was against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee, noting that the Revenue could not cite any judgment to counter the proposition laid down by the Bench in the Phatela Cotgin Industries Pvt. Ltd. case. For the second issue, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tac, Mumbai vs. Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd., particularly para 7, which stated that texturizing and twisting of yarn constitutes 'manufacture' in the context of converting POY into texturized yarn. The Court found that the yarn used by the Assessee could not be utilized for threading purposes, thus falling within the definition of manufacturing. Consequently, Question No. 2 was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The Assessee's appeal (ITA No. 27 of 2018) was rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal decided that the facts of the present case are covered by the decision of the High Court in ITA No. 354 of 2018. The reasoning is based on the concession made by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed in terms of the aforementioned decision. No specific findings on the merits of the case are provided as the appeal was disposed of based on a prior judgment. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal's conclusion that the CUP method was not the most appropriate method was upheld. The TPO had applied the CUP method without bringing on record any substantiation that the AE provided similar services to an independent enterprise in comparable circumstances, nor any instance where comparable services were provided to an independent enterprise in the recipient market. Consequently, the Tribunal found the CUP method inapplicable. The Tribunal also found that the assessee rightly applied the TNMM method as the most appropriate method, given the difficulty in applying CUP or Cost Plus methods. The Tribunal noted that the assessee divided its operations into manufacturing and distribution segments, with OP/Sales at 9.26% (manufacturing) and 15.21% (distribution), which were favorable compared to comparable companies. The Tribunal further concluded that expenses paid to AE employees were in the nature of reimbursement of salaries without any mark-up, meaning payments were to third-party employees, not related parties for services. Therefore, the adjustment made by the TPO on account of professional consultancy and management support services was not justified. The questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.

The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No. 5 of 2016, titled "Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.", decided on 25.04.2016. In that previous decision, an identical question as claimed in the present appeal was held not to be a substantial question of law. Therefore, following its precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning is that if a similar issue has already been decided by the same court and found not to be a substantial question of law, then subsequent appeals on the same issue would also be dismissed on the same ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was left undecided.

The High Court found no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the ITAT had found that documents relating to the persons who granted the loans had been submitted before the Assessing Officer and also produced before the Commissioner. The ITAT also observed that the Commissioner had not pointed out any infirmity in these documents to doubt the creditworthiness of the loanees. The Tribunal further held that the Commissioner erred in concluding that the bank statements and income tax returns had not been filed before the Assessing Officer. The High Court agreed with the ITAT's reasoning that the Commissioner failed to point out any error in the AO's order regarding the loans taken by the assessee. The Court explicitly stated that the paragraphs from the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. were not strictly relevant to the facts and context of the present case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that the arguments of both sides were too extreme. It found that the certification of the main school as a charitable institution was not entirely irrelevant, nor did it automatically entitle the alumni association to exemption as a matter of right. The Tribunal's action of remanding the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration was deemed not illegal. The Tribunal had not reversed any finding but had directed the Commissioner to consider an additional document, the relevance of which the Commissioner would determine. Furthermore, the High Court noted that the respondent was a nascent organization when it initially filed its application, and additional time had passed, allowing the Commissioner to assess its current records to verify if it met the criteria under Section 12AA. Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

The High Court held that the facts of the present case are covered by its prior decision in ITA No. 79 of 2017, which involved The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) versus M/s. O.P.Munjal Foundations, Ludhiana. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present appeal in the same terms as the earlier case. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where a court is bound by its own previous decisions on similar facts. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court held that the question of law arising from the ITAT's order was not a substantial question of law. This conclusion was based on the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, who admitted that the issue was already decided by the High Court in a previous, identical case. The Court referred to its own decision in ITA No.5 of 2016, wherein it had held that a similar question did not qualify as a substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Act was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that if a question of law has already been authoritatively decided by the High Court in a similar context, it does not constitute a substantial question of law for the purpose of a further appeal under Section 260A. Any pending applications related to the main appeal were also disposed of.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect falling below the monetary threshold stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive. No specific issue was decided on merits, and no ratio decidendi for future cases on substantive tax law was established.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for. The reasoning for the dismissal is based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limits for filing appeals, as per the CBDT circulars. The court noted that since the main case was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending C.M. (Civil Miscellaneous application) also stands disposed of. No specific issue was decided on merits, and the ratio decidendi would be that appeals below a certain tax threshold, as per CBDT guidelines, can be withdrawn with liberty to revive under specific circumstances.

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the revenue's counsel, acting on instructions, stated that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019. Consequently, the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. The main case having been dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stands disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below a certain monetary threshold, as per CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the revenue, with potential liberty to revive.

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars. The revenue's counsel explicitly stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal granted the liberty prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. The pending Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No specific issue regarding the merits of the case was decided.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances arise where it is deemed necessary. The reasoning for this decision was solely based on the revenue's submission regarding the low tax effect and the applicable CBDT circulars, which indicated a policy to withdraw appeals below a certain monetary threshold. The Court noted that since the main appeal was dismissed, any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit in the relevant CBDT circulars, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive. No specific issue was decided on merits.

The High Court agreed with the Revenue that the assessee had taken shifting stands regarding payments. The Tribunal's order to remand the case for fresh decision after considering evidence was found to be justified and not causing prejudice.

The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by the Court's own decision in ITA No. 5 of 2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.', decided on 25.04.2016. In that prior decision, an identical question as raised in the present appeal was held not to be a substantial question of law. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The reasoning is that if a prior judgment of the same court has determined that a particular issue does not constitute a substantial question of law, then subsequent appeals raising the same issue must also be dismissed on the same ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The High Court held that the issue in the present appeal is no longer res integra and has been concluded by the Court's own decision in ITA No.5 of 2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.', decided on 25.04.2016. In that prior case, an identical question was held not to be a substantial question of law. Consequently, for the same reasons, the present appeal was dismissed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being dismissed.

The High Court found the facts in the present case to be completely dissimilar to the Nimitya Properties Ltd. case, where only one property each of the two petitioners was attached, not their entire stock-in-trade. The Court expressed concern that the Revenue, by its "leisurely manner and pace" in finalizing the assessment, might "kill the goose which may lay a golden egg." The Court noted the strong possibility of assets becoming compromised due to orders from RERA, Insolvency Courts, and under securitization provisions, all stemming from the Revenue's inability to quantify even a tentative amount involved after more than a year. While inclined to allow the petitions on these grounds, the Court granted the Revenue 10 more days to work out some figures for a reasonable attachment. On the subsequent date, finding the situation "intolerable" due to further adjournments sought by the Revenue and the exemption from appearance granted to the PCIT, the Court disposed of the petitions with a direction that the provisional attachment would be to the extent of Rs. 45 crores, as against the initial proposal of Rs. 22 crores odd.

The High Court held that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by its own prior decision in ITA No. 5 of 2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs. M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd.', decided on 25.04.2016. In that earlier decision, an identical question of law, as raised in the present appeal, was held not to be a substantial question of law. Consequently, following its precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, was also disposed of as a consequence of the dismissal of the main appeal. No specific issue was left undecided.

The High Court held that the appeal does not raise a substantial question of law. The Court relied on its own previous decision in ITA No.5 of 2016, which dealt with an identical question and concluded that it did not constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, the reasoning in the earlier judgment was applied to the present case. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already decided an identical issue as not raising a substantial question of law, subsequent appeals on the same issue will also be dismissed on that ground. The appeal was dismissed, and consequently, any pending Civil Misc. Application also stood disposed of.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any aspect of the matter survive. The reasoning for the dismissal was based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the relevant CBDT circulars. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive. Any pending civil miscellaneous application was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.

The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by its earlier decision in ITA No. 238 of 2018. The Revenue's counsel fairly conceded this point. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in the same terms as CWP No. 8023 of 2007. The reasoning is based on the concession made by the Revenue, indicating that the facts and legal issues in the present appeal are identical or analogous to the previously decided case. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal is covered by a binding precedent of the same court, it should be disposed of accordingly. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The reasoning for the decision is solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the low tax effect, as per the cited circulars. No decision on the merits of the case was made. Any pending C.M. Application was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by their counsel. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the appellant-revenue's submission regarding the tax effect falling below the prescribed monetary limits for appeals, as per the relevant CBDT circulars and letter. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application (C.M. Application) was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel informed the court that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars (Circular No.3 of 2018, amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019), they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The court granted the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by its counsel. The court noted that the withdrawal was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limits prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its circulars. Since the main appeal was dismissed, any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) Application was also disposed of. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed as withdrawn, any pending C.M. (Civil Miscellaneous application) also stood disposed of. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the low tax effect, as per the cited circulars. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant-revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by their counsel. The reasoning for the dismissal is solely based on the appellant-revenue's submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in the CBDT circulars, which led to the decision to withdraw the appeal. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. No specific issue was decided on merits.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passes a fresh order on the rectification application that was filed by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal. The specific content of the rectification application or the material placed on record was not detailed, nor was the assessment year or the specific order being rectified discussed in detail, beyond the fact that it pertained to the assessment year 2011-2012.

The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The reasoning for this decision was based on the appellant-revenue's submission regarding the low tax effect, which aligned with the policy of the CBDT to withdraw appeals below a certain monetary threshold. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty sought by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any part of the case survive. The court noted that the main case had been dismissed, and consequently, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. The reasoning for dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing appeals, as per the relevant CBDT circulars.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel stated that due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT Circulars, they wished to withdraw the appeal. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The court also noted that since the main case was dismissed, any pending C.M. Application also stood disposed of. The ratio is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars, with liberty for revival in certain circumstances.

The High Court held that the petition was devoid of merit. It found that during the survey on August 3, 2016, a detailed questionnaire was put to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the petitioner, and his replies indicated awareness of the reasons for the exercise. The Court concluded that the assessee was not left in the dark regarding the reasons for centralization. A perusal of the pleadings and documents (some in a sealed cover) revealed that the petitioners had full knowledge of the reasons influencing the competent authority. The petitioners' replication provided vague and evasive replies to the Revenue's averments regarding their connection to the Augusta Westland case and the Gautam Khaitan Group, without a categoric denial. The Court opined that due to the international ramifications of the scam and the potential impact on other cases, the Revenue might not have been able to provide more detailed reasons than what was given in the impugned order, especially when the reasons were known to the petitioners. In these peculiar circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and its subsequent amendments. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The Court granted this liberty. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue based on monetary limits set by CBDT circulars, with liberty for revival in specific circumstances. Any pending applications related to the main appeal were also disposed of.

The High Court held that it would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal unless they were perverse. The Court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings regarding the deletion of additions and the granting of benefits, as the Tribunal had considered the evidence on record.

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision that expenses related to the public issue of non-convertible debentures are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37. The Court found no illegality in the reliance on the CBDT circular.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. The reasoning for the dismissal is solely based on the revenue's submission regarding the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals, as per the cited CBDT circulars. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive. No issue was left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ. The court granted the appellant-revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue's counsel informed the court that due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue specifically prayed for liberty to revive the appeal should circumstances warrant it. The court granted this liberty. Consequently, any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application also stood disposed of as the main case was dismissed. No decision on the merits of the substantive tax dispute was made.

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided by the appellant-revenue was that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limits for filing appeals, as per the relevant CBDT circulars. Consequently, the counsel for the appellant-revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) Application was also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being dismissed.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The reasoning for dismissal was based on the appellant-revenue's instruction to withdraw due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT circulars. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold for litigation as per CBDT instructions are to be withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. The court noted that the main case has been dismissed, and therefore, any pending C.M. Application also stands disposed of. The reasoning for the withdrawal was based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT circulars. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue, allowing them to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the appellant-revenue's request to withdraw due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) Application was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as prayed for by the appellant-revenue. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, should circumstances warrant it. The reasoning behind the dismissal was the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary threshold stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars, making further prosecution of the appeal unnecessary. The principle derived is that appeals can be withdrawn based on monetary limits set by administrative instructions, with potential for revival under specific conditions. Any pending applications related to the main appeal were also disposed of as a consequence of the dismissal of the main case.