Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court held that the petitioner's claim for exemption under Article 22 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty was misfounded and hit by Section 90(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that while Section 90 of the 1961 Act enables the Central Government to enter into tax treaties for relief, such relief is subject to the condition under Section 90(4) that the assessee must provide a certificate of residency from their country of residence. The petitioner, being a non-resident of India, was required to submit a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) from the USA government to claim benefits under the Treaty. Since the petitioner admittedly did not possess a TRC from the USA, and his source of income was based in India, he could not claim exemption under Article 22 of the Treaty. The objective of the Treaty is to avoid double taxation, not to avoid taxation altogether. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.

The High Court observed that both parties were aggrieved by the same ITAT judgment but on different grounds. It noted that certain legal issues were pending before the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the High Court deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated August 16, 2013, and remand the case back to the ITAT for a fresh decision on all aspects in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on December 20, 2021, or any other date fixed by the Tribunal. The appeal and cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. No specific findings were given on the merits of the issues raised.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The main case, ITA-313-2015 (O&M), was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal if the competent authority under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, does not accept the appellant's claim under the said scheme. Consequently, any pending civil miscellaneous applications related to the main case were also disposed of. The court did not decide on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The main case (ITA-312-2015) was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal if the competent authority under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, does not accept the appellant's claim under the said scheme. The pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, was also disposed of as the main case had been decided. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original appeal or the provisions of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, beyond facilitating the withdrawal based on the appellant's intent.

The High Court held that the argument that the material was insufficient to justify reassessment was secondary to the primary issue of whether the conclusion that the entity was a shell company inevitably led to the subsequent conclusion that the money received was undisclosed income of the assessee, without any material showing a link between the entity and the assessee. The Court found the revenue's argument that a presumption under Section 68 of the IT Act could be drawn to be "too far-fetched" in the absence of any established link between the foreign entity and the assessee. The Court agreed with the findings of the Commissioner Appeals and the Tribunal that the reopening was done beyond four years and after an unexplained delay, and that the assessee had not failed to disclose material facts during the original assessment. Therefore, no fault could be found with the lower authorities' judgments. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court reasoned that the appellant was desirous of availing the benefit of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and had filed an application to that effect. The revenue had no objection to this application. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to the appellant to revive the appeal in the event the Designated Authority did not accept the declaration filed by the appellant under the scheme. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being decided.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant desired to avail the benefit of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and had filed an application to that effect. The revenue had no objection to this application. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case the Designated Authority does not accept the declaration filed by the appellant under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act. The pending civil miscellaneous application was also disposed of as the main case had been decided.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant was desirous of availing the benefit of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. The revenue had no objection to the application. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in the event that the Designated Authority under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act does not accept the declaration filed by the appellant. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being decided.

The High Court allowed the application and dismissed the main appeal. This was done in accordance with the CBDT circulars regarding tax effect.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The main case, ITA-309-2013, was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant liberty to revive the appeal in case the competent authority under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, did not accept the appellant's claim. This decision was based on the averments made in the application for withdrawal and the lack of objection from the revenue. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being decided.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court dismissed the main case as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to revive the appeal in the event that the competent authority does not accept their claim under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. Since the main case was decided, any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the merits of the original appeal, as it was withdrawn.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Court noted that the present case involved evidence of duplicate accounts and a significant mismatch between the balance sheet and the ERP data, which the petitioner offered a facile explanation for. The Court found that the petitioner had not provided further explanation for the mismatch. It was also observed that the Assessing Officer had issued a detailed order considering the petitioner's objections. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents like M/s Sahara India, Lucknow, and DLF Commercial Project Corporation, stating that a judgment is only an authority on the facts of that case. The Court held that a special audit direction, while having civil consequences, is not ex facie prejudicial as it aims to bring the exact financial position on record. Given the discovery of parallel accounts, the mismatch, and the large volume of ledgers (11,000) to be scrutinized, the Court was not persuaded that the direction for special audit was illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also noted the Assessing Officer's version that the petitioner was seeking adjournments to let the limitation expire.

The High Court allowed the application for dismissal of the appeal. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel accepted that the appeal had to be dismissed in view of Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed. The reasoning was based on the CBDT's circular which mandates dismissal of appeals with low tax effect, and the revenue's concession. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold specified in CBDT circulars, and where the revenue concedes to such dismissal, are to be dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the main appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appeal was being withdrawn because the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019, with a clarification dated 20.8.2019. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a result of the main case being decided. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's stated intention to avail the benefits of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and the respondent's lack of objection. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the application was made for withdrawal of the appeal, stating it was covered by Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019 with a clarification dated 20.8.2019, due to a low tax effect below the monetary limit for Assessment Year 2012-13. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same was allowed, and the main case was taken up. Consequently, the main case was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as the main case had been decided.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court reasoned that the appellant's prayer for withdrawal was based on the applicability of Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, which stipulated withdrawal of appeals with low tax effect below a certain monetary limit. Since the appellant demonstrated that the present appeal fell within these parameters for Assessment Year 2013-14, the Court found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a result of the main case's decision.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant's prayer for withdrawal was based on the grounds that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8.8.2019, with a clarification dated 20.8.2019. For the reasons recorded in the application, the Court permitted the withdrawal. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a result of the main case's decision.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted the appellant's desire to avail the benefit of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and the request for liberty to revive the appeal in case the designated authority did not accept the declaration filed by the applicant. The revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the appellant. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as a result of the main case being decided.

The High Court allowed CM-7369-CII-2021, permitting Annexure A-9 (Form-3) to be placed on record. Subsequently, the Court allowed CM-7370-CII-2021, accepting the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the main appeal (ITA-77-2020). The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the assessee to revive the appeal in case the designated authority did not accept the declaration filed under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications related to the main case were also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being decided. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for placing on record Annexure A-9 (Form-3) for the reasons recorded therein. Subsequently, the Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the main appeal (ITA-83-2020) in view of the averments made. The dismissal of the appeal was made with the liberty granted to the appellant to revive the appeal in case the designated authority under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, 2020, does not accept the declaration filed by the applicant. Consequently, any pending civil miscellaneous applications related to the main case were also disposed of. The Court did not decide the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to revive it as requested by the appellant.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the main appeal. The Court noted the averments made in CM-7050-CII-2021, stating that the tax effect was lower than the monetary benefit. Consequently, the main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that since the main case was decided, any pending applications would stand disposed of. The principle applied is that appeals can be withdrawn if they fall under the low tax effect policy as per CBDT circulars, and the court will permit such withdrawal.

The High Court held that the appeal had become infructuous. This was based on the averments made in CM-4102-CII-2021 and the admission by the counsel for the Revenue that the respondent (assessee) had paid all the tax dues. The Court allowed the application for disposal of the main case and, in view of the admitted facts, dismissed the main appeal as having been rendered infructuous. Any pending applications related to the main case were also disposed of. The principle derived is that an appeal can be dismissed as infructuous if the underlying tax liability has been fully discharged, rendering the appeal moot.

The High Court considered the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appellant, M/s. Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority, had sought to withdraw ITA No. 300 of 2015 on the grounds that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, through its counsel, indicated no objection to this request. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, as prayed for by the appellant. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original appeal, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds related to the settlement scheme.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the Revenue had filed an application seeking withdrawal of the appeal, stating that the tax effect was Rs. 21,02,037/-. The Revenue relied on Circular No. 17/2019, as clarified on 20.08.2019, which stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below a certain threshold. Based on this circular, the Revenue argued that the present appeal was not maintainable. The Court, accepting the reasons stated in the application, dismissed the main appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the Revenue had filed the appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the ITAT that had deleted a tax demand related to non/short deduction of tax under Section 201(1)/201(1-A). The Revenue's application for withdrawal was based on Circular No. 17/2019 and its subsequent clarification, which indicated that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the stipulated limit. The Court accepted the reasons stated in the application and consequently dismissed the main appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the ITAT's order.

The High Court addressed the civil miscellaneous applications filed by the appellant. CM-5697-CII-2021, seeking early hearing, was allowed for the reasons recorded in the application, and the main case was taken up for hearing on the same day. CM-5700-CII-2021, seeking to place Annexures P-6 to P-8 (Form 1, Form 2, Form 3, and payment receipts) on record, was also allowed for the reasons recorded. Subsequently, CM-5698-CII-2021, filed for the withdrawal of the main case (ITA-111-2019), was allowed. Consequently, the main appeal, ITA-111-2019, was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the averments made in CM-5698-CII-2021. Any pending civil miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as the main case had been decided.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the main appeal. The Court held that the appeal is dismissed as having been withdrawn, with the liberty as claimed by the assessee. This means the assessee can pursue resolution under the Direct Tax Vivad-Se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and if the Designated Authority does not accept their declaration, they can revive the appeal. The Court also noted that since the main appeal was decided, any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application also stood disposed of. The specific principle derived from this decision is that courts will generally permit withdrawal of appeals when parties wish to avail of a statutory settlement scheme, provided the opposing party has no objection and liberty to revive is granted.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The Court referred to Rules 57 and 58 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Rule 57 mandates a 25% deposit by the purchaser, with resale in default. Rule 58 clearly states that in case of default in payment, the deposit may be forfeited to the Government after defraying sale expenses, and the defaulting purchaser forfeits all claims. The Court held that the Rs.8,02,500/- was rightly forfeited to the Government as the auction purchaser failed to deposit the balance amount, and the petitioner has no claim to this forfeited sum. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the Rules themselves. Regarding the entry in Form-26AS, the Court held that any inadvertently made entry violating the Rules must be ignored. It was further noted that a correction order dated 26.04.2018 had already rectified this entry, and this order was not challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order correctly denied credit of Rs.8,02,500/- to the petitioner.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the main appeal. The Court reasoned that the assessee wished to settle its disputes under the Direct Tax Vivad-Se-Vishwas Act, 2020, and the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the main appeal (ITA-178-2012) was dismissed as having been withdrawn. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application related to the main appeal was also disposed of. The judgment does not record any specific finding on the merits of the original appeal or any specific issue that was decided by the Tribunal prior to this High Court order.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal (CM-4692-CII-2021) in view of the assessee having opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal in case the settlement under the scheme did not operationalize. Consequently, the main appeal (ITA-45-2015) was dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. The Court also noted that since the main case had been decided, any pending Civil Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stood disposed of. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original appeal was decided.

The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the appellant's stated intention to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the main appeal, ITA-70-2015 (O&M), was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Applications related to the main case were also dismissed as withdrawn. The principle established is that an appeal can be withdrawn if the assessee avails the benefit of a settlement scheme like Vivad Se Vishwas. No specific issue was decided on merits.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal (CM-4694-CII-2021) in view of the respondent-Assessee opting for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court granted liberty to the Assessee to revive the appeal if the settlement under the scheme did not operationalize. Consequently, the main appeal (ITA-350-2004) was dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Applications were also dismissed as withdrawn as a consequence of the main case being withdrawn. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court allowed the application (CM No. 4414-CII of 2021) filed by the assessee seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee had availed the "Vivad Se Vishwas 2020" Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to this request. Consequently, the main appeal, ITA No. 127 of 2019, was taken up for hearing on the same day and was dismissed as withdrawn. The ITAT's order dated 12.7.2018, which dismissed the assessee's appeal against the denial of exemption under Section 11(2) for AY 2008-09, was not adjudicated on its merits by the High Court. No specific finding was recorded on the substantive issues related to the denial of exemption.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee had availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas 2020' scheme, which was the basis for seeking withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the main appeal, ITA No. 103 of 2019, was dismissed as withdrawn. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the ITAT's order regarding the denial of exemption under Section 11(2) for Assessment Year 2009-10. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal. The Court noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal as it had availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas 2020' scheme. The Revenue's counsel accepted notice and raised no objection to this request. Consequently, the application for withdrawal was allowed, and the main appeal (ITA No. 154 of 2019) was dismissed as withdrawn. The specific issue of denial of exemption under Section 11(2) for AY 2010-11 was not adjudicated on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the appellant-assessee's prayer to withdraw the present appeal. The reasoning provided is that the assessee's counsel explicitly requested permission to withdraw the appeal because the client had already availed the “Amnesty Scheme” from the appropriate authority. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the addition of Rs. 44,05,000/-. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal with the liberty to approach the authority under the Income Tax Act. The revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the substantive issues of the appeal was made, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not delve into the merits of the appeal itself, as the decision was based on the assessee's request to withdraw and the revenue's lack of objection. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with the liberty granted to the assessee to approach the relevant authority under the Income Tax Act. No specific issue regarding the assessment or tax liability was decided.

The High Court condoned the delay of 98 days in re-filing the appeal, disposing of the related application. The Court also allowed the application for pre-ponement of the main appeal, taking it on board for hearing on the same day. Subsequently, the Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the present appeal as prayed for, with the liberty to approach the respondent under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Court further granted the liberty to the appellant to move an application for restoration in case the offer under the scheme was not accepted. The main appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court considered the application filed by the appellant, M/s Ess Kay International, for withdrawal of the main appeal (I.T.A No. 251-2007). The court noted that notice of the application was issued, and counsel for the respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar, accepted notice and did not raise any serious objections to the prayer made in the application. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application. The operative direction was that the appeal, I.T.A No. 251-2007, stands dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the substantive grounds of the original appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the main appeal was taken on board and disposed of as withdrawn, as prayed for by the assessee. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal. The court noted that the application was supported by an affidavit and that the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court took the main appeal on board at the request of the parties and disposed of it as withdrawn, as prayed for by the assessee. The reasoning was based on the assessee's explicit request to withdraw the appeal and the revenue's lack of objection. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issues of law or fact were decided on merits, and therefore, no ratio decidendi for future cases on substantive tax law can be extracted. The Court did not leave any issue undecided; rather, it did not decide any issue on merits.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the prayer in C.M. No.2328-CII of 2021 was for withdrawal of the appeal preferred by the applicant-appellant, supported by an affidavit. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department accepted notice and stated there was no objection to the prayer. Consequently, the Court allowed the prayer made in the application and, at the request of the parties' counsel, took the main appeal on board and disposed of it as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The court noted that the application was supported by an affidavit from the assessee. The revenue's counsel accepted notice and raised no objection to the prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the court acceded to the request made by the counsel for the parties and disposed of the main appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal, as the entire appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the prayer in CM No. 2317-CII of 2021 was for withdrawal of the appeal preferred by the applicant-appellant. The application was supported by an affidavit. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department accepted notice and stated that he had no objection to the prayer made in the application. Consequently, the prayer made in CM No. 2317-CII of 2021 was allowed, and the main appeal (ITA-372-2014) was taken on board and disposed of as withdrawn, as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the prayer in CM-2331-CII of 2021 was for withdrawal of the appeal preferred by the applicant-appellant, supported by an affidavit. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department accepted notice and stated there was no objection. Consequently, the Court allowed the prayer made in the application and took the main appeal on board, disposing of it as withdrawn as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of the appeal.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the prayer for withdrawal was made by the applicant-appellant and supported by an affidavit. The counsel for the revenue accepted notice of this application and stated that there was no objection to the prayer. Consequently, the main appeal was taken on board and disposed of as withdrawn, as prayed for by the assessee. No decision on the merits of the appeal was made.

The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the appeal. The Court noted that the application was supported by an affidavit from the assessee. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department accepted notice and stated that the department had no objection to the prayer made in the application. Consequently, the main appeal (ITA-375-2014) was taken on board and disposed of as withdrawn, as prayed for by the assessee. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.