Loading High Court cases…
499 orders · Page 8 of 10
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for by the revenue. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel had instructions to withdraw the appeals due to the tax effect being less than ₹1 crore, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court explicitly stated that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Therefore, no decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the liberty to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeals as prayed for. The Court explicitly stated that the legal issue claimed by the Revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. This means that the merits of the case were not decided, and the withdrawal was based solely on the tax effect and the CBDT circular. The principle that can be cited is that appeals can be withdrawn based on monetary limits prescribed by CBDT circulars, with liberty to revive if circumstances change, and legal issues remain open for future adjudication.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for by the Revenue. The reasoning for withdrawal was explicitly linked to the tax effect being less than ₹1 crore, aligning with the instructions received by the Revenue's counsel from the CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019. The Court also noted that the legal issue claimed by the Revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. This implies that the merits of the underlying tax dispute were not decided. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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 warrant it. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. This implies that no decision on the merits of the underlying tax dispute was made, and the appeal's disposal was solely based on the revenue's decision to withdraw it due to the tax effect threshold stipulated by the CBDT.
The High Court allowed the review applications. While acknowledging the Revenue's technical argument based on Order 47 CPC and the Supreme Court's decision in Shanti Devi, the Court found that the original judgment of September 6, 2018, was predicated on M/s Classic Binding Industries. However, the Supreme Court in M/s AARHAM Softronics specifically noted that M/s Classic Binding Industries had overlooked the definition of 'initial assessment year' under Section 80IC and consequently held that M/s Classic Binding Industries did not lay down the correct law. The High Court reasoned that accepting the Revenue's plea would lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the review applications were allowed. Consequently, the questions of law concerning the claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IC for the relevant assessment years were answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue, aligning with the decision in M/s AARHAM Softronics. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The court also noted that the legal issue claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. This implies that the merits of the case were not decided, and the withdrawal was based on administrative instructions (CBDT circular) regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below a certain tax effect can be withdrawn by the revenue, and the legal issues remain open for future adjudication.
The High Court allowed the review applications. While acknowledging that the Revenue's technical argument based on Order 47 CPC was not entirely incorrect, the Court found that accepting this plea would lead to multiplicity of litigation. The Court noted that the original judgment of 06.09.2018 was based on M/s Classic Binding Industries, but the subsequent Supreme Court decision in M/s AARHAM Softronics specifically pointed out that M/s Classic Binding Industries had omitted to consider the definition of 'initial assessment year' under Section 80IC and had instead relied on the definition under Section 80IB. The Supreme Court in AARHAM Softronics held that M/s Classic Binding Industries did not lay down the correct law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court decided to allow the review. Consequently, questions No. (iii) and (iv) concerning the claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IC for the assessment years 2011-2012 and 2010-2011 were answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The remaining part of the original judgment was maintained.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The court also noted that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. This implies that the merits of the appeal were not decided, and the decision to withdraw was based on administrative instructions (CBDT circular) concerning monetary limits for filing appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold, as per CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the revenue, with potential for revival under specific circumstances, and the underlying legal issue remains open for future determination.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was granted with the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warrant. The Court also noted that the legal issue claimed by the revenue was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The judgment does not provide the specific legal issue or the reasoning behind the original dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn before adjudication on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to revive.
The High Court disposed of the present appeal in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. The submission was that an application for rectification of the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, was pending before the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of at that stage without delving into the merits of the original order or the rectification application. No finding was given on the substantive issues of the appeal, and the operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as presented.
The High Court decided the reference by disposing of the three questions of law. Regarding Question No. 2, both learned counsel agreed that it should be decided in terms of the High Court's decision dated 24.7.2019 in ITR No. 225 of 1995. The Court ordered accordingly, deciding Question No. 2 in the same terms as that prior order. For Questions No. 1 and 3, the learned counsel for the appellant conceded that these questions had already been decided by the High Court in the case of Sirsa Industries reported in 178 ITR 437 (P&H). The Court ordered that these questions be disposed of in terms of the Sirsa Industries decision. Consequently, Questions No. 1 and 3 were decided in the same terms as the decision in Sirsa Industries. The reference was disposed of in these terms. No specific amounts were deleted or added by the High Court's decision; rather, the matter was decided based on prior precedents.
The High Court disposed of the reference by stating that the questions of law are concluded in terms of its previous decision dated 24.7.2019 in ITR No. 224 of 1995. While the specific findings of the Tribunal on the two issues are not detailed in this excerpt, the High Court's decision implies that it found the Tribunal's view on these matters to be consistent with its prior ruling. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference in the same terms as the earlier decided case. The specific reasoning of the High Court for its decision in ITR No. 224 of 1995, which forms the basis for this disposal, is not provided here. Therefore, the ratio decidendi for this specific judgment is that the issues are settled by precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the Tribunal had given an unnatural and strained meaning to the expression 'supply'. While PUCH authorized the use of its designs by supplying the material, the actual use would commence only when production and sale began. It was at that stage that royalty would become payable. Therefore, the payment of 3 million Austrian Schilling was not royalty for the purpose of tax deduction at source. The Court found that the payment was for the supply of material, and the actual 'use' of that material, which would attract royalty, was distinct from the act of 'supply' itself. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No issue was expressly left undecided.
In ITR No. 226 of 1995, the High Court dismissed the reference as infructuous, accepting the revenue's submission that no question of law arose. In ITR No. 227 of 1995, the High Court allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the reference, citing Circular No. 3/2018 concerning taxable amounts below Rs. 50 Lakh, and dismissed it as withdrawn. For ITR Nos. 224 and 225 of 1995, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on both questions. Regarding Question 1 (closing stock), the court noted the assessee admitted it was covered against them by the High Court's decision in ITR No. 139 of 1999. For Question 2 (interest on FDRs), the court accepted the Tribunal's exposition of law that income accrues in the year of approval, not actual receipt, even if the assessee followed the cash system inconsistently. The court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee's practice of using the approval system but resorting to the cash system randomly was impermissible. The references were disposed of in terms of the Tribunal's findings, with a caveat regarding the adjustment of tax paid in subsequent years.
The High Court held that the petitioner's arguments must prevail. The Court found that Section 244-A of the Income Tax Act, which deals with interest on refunds, is not applicable in this case because the issue pertains to illegal attachment and retention of funds. The revenue itself admitted that the money was wrongly attached and retained. Therefore, the Court concluded that there could be no escape from the payment of interest. The rate of interest claimed was also deemed not excessive. The petition was allowed, directing the payment of Rs. 3.68 crores as interest to the petitioner within two months. Failure to comply would result in further interest at 9% per annum on this amount.
The High Court held that the facts of the present case were starkly different from the precedent relied upon by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) itself had issued Circular No. 9 of 2014, acknowledging a genuine doubt regarding the allowability of depreciation on BOT highway projects. The circular clarified that such expenditure could be amortized as business expenditure. The lower authorities (Commissioner and ITAT) had considered this circular and concluded that there was a genuine doubt. Therefore, the High Court found no fault with the concurrent orders of the Commissioner and the ITAT in setting aside the penalty proceedings. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Assessee is entitled to claim 30% depreciation on the buses. The Court found the interpretation adopted by the Assessing Officer to be unnatural and illogical. The phrase 'Motor buses, motor lorries and motor taxis used in a business of running them on hire' was interpreted to mean that the business itself is the operation of these vehicles for hire. The Court reasoned that the business of running buses, lorries, and taxis inherently means running them for hire, as otherwise, they would merely be for the assessee's own use and not a business. Therefore, the natural and correct interpretation is that assessees engaged in the business of operating automobiles for hire are eligible for higher depreciation. The Court found no fault with the orders of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.
The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This was because the petitioner's counsel informed the court that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had already partly allowed the assessee's appeal. Consequently, the original prayer for quashing the order and staying the recovery of the demand was no longer relevant as the appeal before the ITAT, which was the subject of the interim order, had been decided. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the demand or the ITAT's decision. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous.
The High Court held that the contention of the Revenue that there was no material on record to support the conclusions of the CIT(A) and the ITAT was incorrect. The Court noted that material was indeed present before the Assessing Officer, referencing specific paragraphs from the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders. These paragraphs detailed the assessee's explanation regarding discounted sales to needy students based on school principals' recommendations, the submission of documentary evidence, and the practice being followed in earlier years and by other traders. The High Court concluded that the view taken by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, who believed the material which the AO disbelieved, could not be considered perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The High Court allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the reference. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect in the present case was below the monetary limit specified in Circular No. 3/2018. The Court ordered accordingly, leading to the dismissal of the reference as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made. The operative direction was to dismiss the reference as withdrawn.
The High Court condoned the delay of 127 days in re-filing the appeal, allowing the application for condonation of delay. Regarding the main appeal, the High Court noted that the counsel for the appellant-revenue fairly accepted that the issue was covered against the Revenue by a Division Bench judgment of the High Court in a similar case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal in the same terms as the cited precedent. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is squarely covered by a High Court judgment, the Revenue should not pursue further appeals on that issue, and such appeals will be dismissed.
The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the main case decided by the Tribunal had rendered the writ petition infructuous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. Any pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, was also dismissed as such, given that the main case was dismissed as infructuous. The High Court did not decide any substantive issue related to the income tax assessment or the Tribunal's order on merits.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the Revenue's counsel did not dispute that the tax effect of Rs. 3,30,960/- was below the monetary limits stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The High Court granted this permission, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. Crucially, the legal issues claimed by the Revenue were expressly left open for adjudication in an appropriate case, and liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival if circumstances warranted. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limits stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case any aspect of the matter survives. The legal issues that would have been adjudicated in the appeal were expressly left open for decision in an appropriate future case. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that it would be bound by the decisions of its own Division Benches. Specifically, it referred to its prior decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 156 and its own recent judgment in ITA No.130 of 2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited) decided on 07.02.2019. Based on these precedents, the Court concluded that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was returned in original for presentation in the competent court of jurisdiction. The Court did not decide the merits of the case or the issues raised before the ITAT. The delay condonation application and any other pending applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being disposed of.
The High Court held that the issue in the present appeal is covered by its own previous Division Bench judgment in ITA No.78 of 2019. The revenue's counsel conceded this point. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed in the same terms as the cited judgment. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of based on concession and precedent.
The High Court held that the issue in the present appeal is covered by its own Division Bench judgment in ITA No.78 of 2019. The Revenue's counsel conceded this point. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed in the same terms as the cited judgment. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, was also dismissed as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was decided based on the concession.
The High Court held that it would be bound by the decision of a Division Bench of its own court. Specifically, it referred to its previous decision in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 156, and its own judgment in ITA No.130 of 2018, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited, decided on February 7, 2019. Based on these precedents, the High Court concluded that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was returned in original for presentation in the competent court of jurisdiction. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that it would be bound by the decisions of its own Division Benches. Specifically, it referred to its previous judgments in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s Motorola India Ltd. and in ITA No.130 of 2018 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh Vs. M/s ABC Papers Limited), decided on 07.02.2019, which dealt with identical issues. Consequently, the High Court found that it did not have the competent jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal was therefore returned in original for presentation in the competent court of jurisdiction. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the Revenue's counsel had fairly accepted that the issue was squarely covered against the Revenue by the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Aarham Softronics. The Apex Court, in its judgment, had clarified the definition of 'initial assessment year' under Section 80-IC of the Act, distinguishing it from Section 80-IB. It held that an undertaking or enterprise setting up a new unit between 7th January 2003 and 1st April 2012 in Himachal Pradesh would be entitled to 100% deduction for five assessment years, followed by 25% (or 30% for companies) for the next five years. The judgment further elaborated on how substantial expansion within the 10-year period could reset the 'initial assessment year' for further 100% deductions. Based on this concession and the Apex Court's ruling, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court held that the question of law raised for adjudication was to be answered in the negative. The Court reasoned that in view of Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with a foreign government for avoidance of double taxation, the provisions of such an agreement would operate even if they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, provided they are more beneficial to the assessee. The assessee had correctly invoked the DTAA with the USA. The Court noted that the ITAT had made a finding of fact that no technical knowledge was 'made available' by the recipient to the payer, which is a condition for taxing fees for included services under the DTAA. Consequently, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 9(1)(vii) was rightly deleted by the ITAT. The Court relied on the principle laid down in Union of India Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 132 Taxman 373 (SC) that DTAA provisions override the Income Tax Act to the extent of inconsistency and benefit to the assessee. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the respondents had produced a communication dated 25.04.2018, indicating that an interim stay had been granted on the total outstanding demand for the assessment year 2011-12, amounting to ₹8,68,300/-, till the disposal of the appeal pending before the CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh, upon the deposit of 20% of the demand. In view of this development, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court accepted this submission and ordered accordingly. No specific issue was decided on merits; the petition was disposed of as infructuous.
The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue. The Court noted that it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and stood concluded by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA-5-2016, decided on 25.4.2016. In that prior decision, an identical question as raised in the present appeal had been held not to constitute a substantial question of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was also dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order or the specific provisions of Section 254(2A) as the matter was deemed concluded by precedent.
The High Court held that the issue was concluded by its own decision in ITA-270-2016 (The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala v. State Bank of Patiala), decided on 27.2.2017, which held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act should be restricted to the amount of exempt income only. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, which affirmed the High Court's conclusion in State Bank of Patiala cases, clarifying that while the dominant intention theory applied by the High Court was not subscribed to, the principle of restricting disallowance to exempt income was correct. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court noted that it was not disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue that the matter in issue was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a previous decision of the same Court in ITA-5-2016, decided on April 25, 2016. In that prior judgment, an identical question to the one raised in the present appeal was held not to be a substantial question of law. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the aforementioned appeal, the present appeal was also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
The High Court held that both substantial questions of law were covered by previous judgments of the same court. For question (i), the court referred to its decision in ITA No. 209 of 2015 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana v. M/s Malwa Industries Ltd., Ludhiana) decided on 26.8.2015, where the revenue's appeal was dismissed. For question (ii), the court referred to its decision in ITA No. 186 of 2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar v. M/s Max India Limited) decided on 6.9.2016, where the revenue's appeal was also dismissed. Based on these precedents, the High Court dismissed the present appeals filed by the revenue.
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the Revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court granted the liberty prayed for by the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue would not be construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the Revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The Court did not decide the substantive merits of the appeal.