Loading High Court cases…
588 orders · Page 12 of 12
The High Court held that the result of this appeal would be the same as the result in ITA No. 434 of 2015, which was disposed of by a separate order and judgment passed on the same day. For the reasons stated in that other judgment, this appeal was also disposed of in the same terms. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the other judgment are not provided in this excerpt. Therefore, the operative directions and any issues left undecided are not ascertainable from this text. The judgment does not specify any relief granted or denied, nor does it mention any specific sections of the Income Tax Act that were discussed.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in ITA No. 5 of 2016, decided on 25.04.2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited). The Court found that the questions of law in both appeals were identical. Consequently, based on the precedent set by the Division Bench, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made, as the decision was based on the principle of parity with the earlier judgment. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court acknowledged that the Revenue's counsel fairly brought to its notice the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC). The Court found that this Supreme Court decision covered the present case against the appellant/revenue. Based on this precedent, the High Court concluded that the appeal filed by the Revenue was without merit. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of the same court in ITA No. 5 of 2016, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon Vs M/s Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Limited, decided on 25.04.2016. The Court found that the questions of law in both appeals were identical. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the basis of the earlier binding precedent. No specific findings on the merits of the assessee's case or the revenue's grounds of appeal were made, as the decision rested on the principle of stare decisis. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The decision was based on the revenue's fair admission that the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balbir Singh Maini, [2017] 398 ITR 531 (SC) was applicable and covered the case against the revenue. The High Court found no reason to deviate from the Supreme Court's precedent. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal upholding the CIT's decision was implicitly affirmed by dismissing the revenue's appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the cited Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court found that neither the Assessing Officer, the CIT, nor the Tribunal had considered relevant facts. While the amount appeared prima facie excessive, the authorities had not examined the nature of the publications purchased or how they were used. The court noted that the assessee's own figures suggested an expenditure of Rs. 34,000/- per month per room/office, which warranted factual consideration. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, allowing parties an opportunity to furnish evidence in support of the deduction claim. The Tribunal was also given liberty to remand the matter further if it deemed necessary, and the issue concerning the resale of publications would also be decided afresh.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Court stated that the appeal was similar to the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon vs. Sudhir Dhingra, ITA No.461 of 2017, which was disposed of by their order and judgment dated 12.02.2018. Therefore, this appeal was also disposed of in the same terms. The operative direction was that the appeal is dismissed. No specific finding was made on the merits of the case, as the dismissal was based on a procedural ground.
The High Court held that both parties had agreed that the result in this appeal would follow the result in ITA No.178 of 2017, which had been disposed of by a separate order and judgment on the same day. Consequently, for the reasons stated in the judgment for ITA No.178 of 2017, this appeal and the associated cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. The specific findings and reasoning from ITA No.178 of 2017 are not provided in this excerpt, nor are any substantive issues of the appeal decided on their merits. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal and cross-objections in line with the related case.
The High Court held that the matter was covered in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, National Hydroelectric Power Corp. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 2010(320) ITR 374. The facts of the present appeal were identical to those before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had held that AAD does not enter the stream of income for the purposes of determination of net profit at all and is not a reserve. It was characterized as 'income received in advance' and a 'timing difference' representing an adjustment in future. The High Court found that these observations, though made in the context of Explanation-I to Section 115JB, applied equally to the question of whether AAD constitutes income. Therefore, AAD was held not to constitute income of the year in question. The questions were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the questions of law raised in these appeals were the same as those in ITA No.151 of 2015, which had been disposed of by a separate order and judgment passed on the same date. It was agreed by both parties that the result in these appeals would follow the result of ITA No.151 of 2015. Consequently, the High Court answered the questions of law in favour of the respondent-assessee. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. The specific findings or reasoning from the decision in ITA No.151 of 2015 were not detailed in this judgment, but the operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals based on the agreed-upon outcome.
The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the President of the ITAT to forthwith nominate a third member, if not already nominated, and to request him to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The Court noted that the revenue had not made any formal application to the Tribunal for the nomination of the third member. The Court expressed confidence that if the Tribunal's attention was drawn to the facts, the President would take necessary action. The Court did not decide the merits of the stay or the underlying appeal, but rather addressed the procedural delay. The operative direction is to expedite the resolution of the matter by the ITAT. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court's focus was on the procedural aspect of the delay.
The High Court noted the revenue's grievance that the stay had been continued without the appeal being decided, and that a third member had not been nominated to resolve a difference of opinion among the ITAT members. The Court acknowledged that the appellant (revenue) had not made any application to the Tribunal for the nomination of the third member. The Court expressed confidence that if the attention of the Tribunal's President were drawn to the facts, a third member would be nominated forthwith and requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously, considering the issue and the amount involved. The appeal was accordingly disposed of on this basis, without delving into the merits of the stay or the underlying tax dispute.
The High Court held that the ITAT had rightly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Court noted that the AO had raised specific queries regarding the nature of the assessee's business during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3), and the assessee had provided detailed written submissions clarifying its role as a commission agent. The original assessment order proceeded on this basis. The subsequent reopening under Section 147 was found by the Tribunal to be based on a change of opinion by the AO, without any new information or material. The Court found no perversity or irrationality in the ITAT's finding that the AO was not entitled to assume jurisdiction under Section 147 in the absence of new information or material. The ITAT relied on judgments from the Delhi High Court in Madhukar Khosla v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Orient Crafts Ltd. (354 ITR 536). The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of territorial jurisdiction. The reasoning provided is that the appeal is similar to another appeal, ITA-461-2017, which was also dismissed on the same grounds. The operative direction was to return the original file to the appellant. No specific ratio decidendi is explicitly stated beyond the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. This decision was based on a prior judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in ITA-44-2005 titled The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs M/s Motorola India Ltd. The Court acknowledged the appellant's predicament regarding jurisdictional issues with the Delhi High Court but stated that the decision on whether to appeal to the Supreme Court was for the appellant to make. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. No decision was made on the merits of the additions or deletions made by the lower authorities.
The High Court held that the issue was decided on an appreciation of evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was logical and not perverse or irrational. The Court stated that under its jurisdiction for Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, it cannot re-appreciate evidence, especially when no perversity is established. The High Court found no warrant for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had confirmed the CIT (Appeals)'s reasoning that the land was transferred to the assessee without consideration, was part of the company's balance sheet, and the sale proceeds were received by the company, thus no investment was made by the assessee. The High Court concluded that the question raised by the revenue was a question of fact, not a substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the revenue has challenged these prior judgments before the Supreme Court, and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgment. The specific findings of the ITAT or the detailed reasoning for the prior High Court judgments are not elaborated upon in this order, as the appeal was decided on the basis of precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the cited judgments.
The High Court held that the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the revenue has challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. The specific findings of the Division Bench judgment that are being applied are not detailed in this order, nor are the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal in terms of the prior judgment.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee, Improvement Trust Bathinda, in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The Court noted that the revenue had challenged these prior judgments before the Supreme Court and that leave had been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgment. The specific reasoning of the cited judgments was not elaborated upon in this order, but the principle applied is that a consistent High Court precedent, even if under challenge in the Supreme Court, binds the High Court.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court was informed that the revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgment. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgments were not elaborated upon in this order, but the principle applied is that a subsequent appeal would follow a binding precedent from a higher bench of the same court, unless distinguished. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the cited judgment.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment of the same Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the Revenue has challenged this precedent before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. However, in light of the binding precedent of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appeal was disposed of in terms of that judgment. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited Division Bench judgment were not elaborated upon in this order, but the principle is that the present case is factually and legally similar to the precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The Court noted that the Revenue had challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave had been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments. No specific finding on the merits of the current appeal was recorded, as it was decided based on precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the mentioned judgments.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that it was agreed that the appeal was covered by this precedent. Although the revenue has challenged the aforesaid judgment before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted, the High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the cited judgment.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The court was informed that the revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The specific relief granted or the amount in dispute was not detailed, but the operative direction was to dispose of the appeal based on the precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court was informed that the revenue has challenged this prior judgment before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The specific findings or reasoning from the cited judgment are not detailed within this order, nor is the amount in dispute recorded. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of its own prior judgments in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgments. The specific reasoning from those prior judgments is not provided, nor are the operative directions beyond disposing of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the present appeal was covered in favour of the assessee in view of two previous judgments of a Division Bench of the same court: 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The Court was informed that the Revenue had challenged these prior judgments before the Supreme Court, and leave had been granted in those appeals. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the prior judgments, implying relief for the assessee based on those precedents. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court, to which one of the judges was a party. This judgment refers to 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The Court was informed that the Revenue has challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court and that leave has been granted in those cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The specific findings on the merits of the Improvement Trust, Hansi's case are not detailed, as the decision is based on precedent.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the Division Bench judgments of the same High Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another, and Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The reasoning is that these prior judgments are binding on the current bench. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, the appeal should be decided accordingly. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgments. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in favour of the assessee, Improvement Trust Bathinda. The Court acknowledged that the present appeal was covered by the Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The Court was informed that the revenue had challenged these prior judgments before the Supreme Court and that leave had been granted. Despite the Supreme Court proceedings, the High Court followed its own binding precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment, implying relief for the assessee.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the Division Bench judgment of the Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The specific findings of the Division Bench judgment are not detailed in this order, but the principle applied is that the present case is identical to the precedents cited. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same court, to which one of the judges (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party. This judgment refers to 'The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another' and 'Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H)'. The court noted that the Revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted in those cases. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the mentioned judgments.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of the same Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the Revenue had agreed to this position. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where a subsequent case with similar facts and legal issues is bound by a prior decision of a higher or coordinate bench. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the present appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in The Tribune Trust Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and another and in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Improvement Trust, Moga (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Court noted that the Revenue has challenged these judgments before the Supreme Court and leave has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid High Court judgment. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, and the Revenue's challenge to that precedent is pending before the Supreme Court, the High Court will follow its own precedent. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was decided based on the established precedent.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law did not arise. The Court found that the conclusions reached by the lower authorities were based on an appreciation of facts that could not be considered perverse or irrational. The core issue was whether the apparent consideration of ₹3.60 lacs and ₹3.40 lacs in the sale deeds dated 19.01.2001 and 01.02.2001 represented the actual consideration received by the appellant. The ITAT's reliance on the agreement dated 06.10.2000, found during a search and admitted to be signed by the assessee, was deemed not unfounded or irrational. The Court noted the significant fall in price from ₹21 lacs to ₹7 lacs (implied from the sale deeds) without explanation and the lack of evidence for default by the prospective purchaser. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings were based on factual appreciation, not perverse or irrational.
The High Court held that the first three questions of law were covered against the appellant by a previous judgment of the same court in ITA-18-2017 (The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs Sh. Hitesh Gandhi). In that case, similar share transactions with substantial appreciation, routed through the bank and traded on the National Stock Exchange, were upheld as not being supported by any evidence of fictitiousness by the AO. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from these issues. Regarding question (iv), the Court noted that the documents relied upon by the AO were not put to the assessee during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) considered these documents and found no correlation with the amounts sought to be added. The High Court found this appreciation of facts by the CIT(A) and ITAT to be neither perverse nor irrational, thus not giving rise to a question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law. Regarding the first issue, the Court clarified that while payment by cheque and TDS deduction alone do not automatically establish genuineness and business expediency, the Appellate Authorities had considered the entirety of the facts, not just these aspects, to conclude that the lease payment was a genuine business expenditure. Concerning the second issue, the Court found it to be a question of fact, not a substantial question of law. The Court reasoned that difficulties in commencing business use of premises do not invalidate the claim for expenses if they were incurred for business purposes. The decision to continue the lease despite delays was a business decision. The Court found no perversity or irrationality in the ITAT's order, which was based on a logical appreciation of the facts. Therefore, interference was not warranted.