Loading High Court cases…
662 orders · Page 13 of 14
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated February 26, 2026, has decided to dispose of ITA-128-2021 (O&M) in accordance with the detailed order passed on the same date in ITA-517-2008, titled 'M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.'. No independent findings or reasoning are provided for ITA-128-2021 itself. The operative direction is to follow the decision in the related appeal. Any pending applications related to ITA-128-2021 are also disposed of in terms of the main order.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 26.02.2026, has not provided a decision on the merits of ITA-292-2019. Instead, it has directed that for the orders and reasoning, reference should be made to a detailed order of the same date passed in a related appeal, ITA-517-2008, titled 'M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.'. This implies that the decision in ITA-292-2019 is consequential to or identical with the decision in ITA-517-2008. Any pending applications related to this appeal have also been disposed of in terms of the order in ITA-517-2008. No specific findings or operative directions are provided for ITA-292-2019 in this document.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana did not decide the appeal on its merits. Instead, the Court passed an order stating that for the detailed order, reference should be made to ITA-517-2008 titled 'M/s Vardhman Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.', passed on the same date. Any pending applications were also disposed of in terms of that detailed order. No specific finding on any issue, reasoning, or ratio decidendi is provided in this order. No operative directions are given, other than the disposal of pending applications and the reference to the other judgment.
The High Court held that the sales tax subsidy, granted to promote capital investment, is a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue. This decision was influenced by Supreme Court judgments and a concession by the Revenue before the ITAT.
The High Court held that the sales tax collected and retained by the assessee, under the Gujarat government's incentive policy, is a capital receipt. This decision aligns with previous judgments from the Gujarat High Court, which were upheld by the Supreme Court.
The High Court has not rendered a decision on the merits of the appeal in this specific order. Instead, it has stated that for orders, reference should be made to the detailed order passed on the same date in ITA-107-2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited'. This implies that the outcome of the present appeal is directly linked to and will follow the decision in the aforementioned related appeal. Any pending applications have also been disposed of in conjunction with the main order.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated February 24, 2026, decided the appeal ITA-162-2016 (O&M) by referring to a detailed order passed on the same date in a connected appeal, ITA-107-2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Vardhaman Acrylic Limited'. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for ITA-162-2016 are not elaborated upon in this judgment. The operative directions, such as remand or deletion, are also not detailed here, as they are presumed to be contained within the referenced order of the companion case. Any pending applications related to this appeal were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has disposed of the present appeal, ITA-109-2016, by referring to a detailed order passed on the same date in a connected appeal, ITA-107-2016. The judgment states that for orders, the reader should see the detailed order in ITA-107-2016. Therefore, the specific findings, reasoning, ratio, and operative directions for this particular appeal are not provided in this excerpt. Any pending applications related to this appeal have also been disposed of in line with the connected order.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer has the jurisdiction to enhance the declared sale consideration if there is evidence of suppression. The court found sufficient evidence, including prior agreements, market trends, and development of adjoining land, to justify the enhancement.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has not provided a decision on the merits of ITA-117-2009 in this specific order. Instead, it has directed that for the orders, reference should be made to a detailed order of even date passed in ITA-338-2006 (O&M). This implies that the reasoning and findings for ITA-117-2009 are contained within that other judgment. Consequently, the specific findings on any issues, the reasoning leading to those findings, and the operative directions for ITA-117-2009 are not detailed here. No issue has been expressly left undecided; rather, the decision is deferred to another order.
The Tribunal erred in setting aside the CIT(E)'s order based on oral submissions not backed by evidence. The High Court found this legally impermissible and a violation of natural justice.
The High Court held that the withholding of the release of seized jewellery was arbitrary and violated the terms of the CBDT circular dated 16.10.2023. The court reasoned that the petitioners had complied with the requirements of the circular, including accepting ownership and furnishing a bank guarantee for the assessed value. The delay in release was attributed to administrative reasons by the respondents, which were unexplained and vague. The court found that the petitioners should not be prejudiced by the increase in the market value of the jewellery due to this delay. Therefore, the court directed the immediate release of 901.030 grams of jewellery to petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, subject to affidavits of no objection and ownership claims. The remaining 33 seized jewellery items were also directed to be released forthwith to petitioner No. 1 against the bank guarantee already furnished, subject to affidavits of ownership and no objection from petitioner No. 2.
The High Court held that the petitions deserve to be allowed and accordingly allowed them, setting aside the impugned orders. The Court reasoned that there was a 1989 High Court judgment in favour of the petitioner which was not challenged by the revenue. Although the Supreme Court initially took a contrary view in 1993, it subsequently doubted its own judgment and referred the matter to a larger bench, indicating that the legal position was unclear. The final adjudication in 1998 favoured the assessee. The retrospective amendment to Section 80P(2) was made after the period in question. The Court found that the petitioner did not deposit tax due to this lack of clarity and, being a public sector undertaking, had no mala fide intention to evade tax. In these circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to a waiver of interest under Section 234B, supported by CBDT Circulars. The Court noted that the amount of tax was not meagre but emphasized the lack of clarity and the petitioner's status.
The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel had specific instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being under Rs. 2 Crores, in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeal based on the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 06.08.2024. The court noted that the tax effect of Rs. 72,43,044/- was below these limits. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an appropriate application if any contrary information was discovered later. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the appeal stands disposed of because the appellant-Income Tax Department is unable to trace the respondent-Trust, which is no longer registered on the ITR portal, and the Department cannot contact its trustees. The Court reasoned that any order passed in such circumstances would be an academic exercise rather than an actual adjudication of the dispute. The appellant is granted liberty to move an appropriate application if a cause survives. The disposal of the appeal is explicitly stated not to be an opinion of the Court on the merits of the case. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated February 12, 2026, has stated that the decision in this appeal (ITA-358-2014) is being passed for orders, as per the detailed order of even date in ITA-252-2010 titled 'Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.'. This implies that the findings and reasoning from the aforementioned related case would be applied to the present appeal. Consequently, the specific holdings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for ITA-358-2014 are not independently elaborated here but are subsumed within the decision of ITA-252-2010. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court dismissed the appeals based on the CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits. The revenue was granted liberty to move an application if contrary facts were discovered later.
The High Court held that while the revenue authorities have the power to attach bank accounts, the prolonged pendency of the petitioner's appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be ignored. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner-trust is an educational institution serving a beneficial cause and that its day-to-day expenses are essential for its functioning and the education of its students. The Court noted that the petitioner's ability to access its bank accounts is crucial for its survival and for continuing to serve students, and that its inability to do so would cause severe detriment. Therefore, to balance the equities, the Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide all three pending appeals of the petitioner within one month. In the interim, upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1 crore in favor of the competent authority, the petitioner would be allowed to withdraw up to Rs. 1 crore from its accounts solely for meeting its daily expenses.
The High Court held that the assessee had availed overdraft facilities based on the stock statements, and despite the issue of signatures, the statements were prepared by the bank's godown keeper and linked to the drawing power. The assessee was given opportunities to disprove the statements but failed to do so.
The High Court found that the delay in deciding the petitioner's appeal, which was remanded by the ITAT on 27.11.2019, was unnecessary and not appreciated. The Court directed the competent authority, which is now responsible for finally deciding the petitioner's appeal, to do so within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original assessment or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural delay. The principle established is that undue procedural delays in deciding tax appeals are not to be countenanced, and courts can direct authorities to expedite such decisions.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision on the deductibility of expenditure on product development and ERP implementation, and the allowance of deduction under Section 80-I. The court also confirmed that excise duty should not form part of 'total turnover' for Section 80HHC deduction.
The High Court held that the issues raised in the appeal had already been decided by previous orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the present appeal was decided in accordance with those prior rulings.
The High Court noted that all three questions raised in the appeal had already been settled by previous orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court in favor of the assessee. The appellant's counsel could not controvert these submissions.
The High Court held that all the questions raised by the appellant had already been answered by this Court in previously decided appeals. Therefore, the present appeal was decided in terms of those prior orders.
The High Court held that the questions raised in the appeal had already been decided by previous orders of the same court in related cases. Therefore, the present appeal was decided in terms of those prior judgments.
The High Court disagreed with the ITAT regarding product development expenses, holding them to be capital in nature. However, it upheld the ITAT's decision on promotional and trade marketing expenses being revenue expenses, and also agreed with the ITAT on other issues raised by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was a capital receipt. This was because the relevant amendment to Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act, which would have treated such receipts as revenue, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.
The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The court granted the petitioner liberty to move an appropriate application if, at any stage, an adverse order is passed by the respondent-Revenue. The court did not decide on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted. No specific issues were decided on their substance.
The High Court has disposed of the appeal based on the detailed order passed in ITA-34-2016. The judgment does not contain any independent findings or reasoning specific to the appeal of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. The operative directions are to dispose of the appeal in line with the aforementioned related case. No specific issue was decided on merits in this particular judgment, as it relies on a prior detailed order.
As the judgment refers to a detailed order passed in a connected appeal (ITA-34-2016) for the final decision, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for this particular appeal (ITA-101-2016) are not elaborated in this excerpt. The operative directions are also not detailed here, beyond stating that pending applications have been disposed of. Any issue expressly left undecided is not mentioned.
The High Court has disposed of the present appeal based on the detailed order passed in ITA-34-2016 titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd.'. Therefore, the findings, reasoning, and operative directions in this appeal are contingent upon the decision in the aforementioned related case. The specific legal principles or ratio decidendi applicable to this particular appeal are not elaborated upon in this excerpt, as it defers to the companion judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court has not provided a specific decision or reasoning in this excerpt. Instead, it has stated that the order for this appeal (ITA-83-2021) is being passed based on the detailed order of even date in a connected appeal, ITA-34-2016, titled 'Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd.'. Therefore, the findings, reasoning, ratio, and operative directions for this specific appeal are contingent upon the decision in the aforementioned connected case. Any issue expressly left undecided is not recorded here. The judgment only notes that pending applications, if any, have been disposed of.
The High Court has not provided any findings or reasoning on the merits of the case. The operative part of the judgment merely states that 'For orders, see detailed order of even date passed in ITA-34-2016 titled as ‘Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd.’'. This indicates that the decision in the present appeal is contingent upon or identical to the decision in another related appeal. No specific issue was decided, no reasoning was provided, and no operative directions were issued in this judgment itself.
The judgment does not provide any findings or reasoning on the issues before the Tribunal. It explicitly states that for orders, reference should be made to a detailed order of even date passed in ITA-34-2016. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision, the reasoning leading to it, and the ratio decidendi are not discernible from this excerpt. No operative directions or relief granted are mentioned. Any issue expressly left undecided is also not recorded.
The High Court has not provided a substantive decision on the merits of the appeal in this excerpt. Instead, it has stated that the order is being passed 'for orders' and directs the reader to a detailed order of even date passed in a related case, ITA-34-2016 titled ‘Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. M/s Vardhman Acrylics Ltd.’. This implies that the reasoning and findings for the present appeal are contained within that referenced order. Any pending applications have been disposed of. No specific issue was decided, no reasoning was provided, and no operative directions were issued in this particular judgment excerpt.
The High Court dismissed the appeals based on the respondent's submission regarding the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The appellant was granted liberty to move an application if contrary information was found later.
The High Court has not rendered a decision on the merits of the appeal in this judgment. It merely states that the detailed order for this appeal is to be found in ITA-34-2016, decided on the same date. Consequently, there is no finding on any specific issue, no reasoning provided, and no ratio decidendi that can be extracted. The operative directions are also not present as no decision has been made. Any pending applications have been disposed of.
This excerpt does not contain the Tribunal's decision or reasoning on any specific issues. It merely states that the order for this appeal (ITA-184-2017) is being passed in accordance with a detailed order issued on the same date for a related appeal (ITA-34-2016). Therefore, the findings on any issues, the reasoning, the ratio decidendi, and the operative directions are not available in this text. No issue was expressly left undecided as the decision is deferred to the related order.
The High Court decided several issues based on prior rulings. Questions 1 and 2 were answered as per a previous order, question 3 was decided against the assessee based on a Supreme Court judgment, and questions 4, 5, and 6 were answered in favor of the assessee based on other High Court orders.
The High Court, in its oral order, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, who stated that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn in light of the Board Circulars dated 15.03.2024 and 06.08.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. No other issue was adjudicated upon, and no reasoning beyond the appellant's request and the cited circulars was provided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that questions 1 to 5 were covered by previous High Court orders, and question 6 was settled by the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision on several issues, including the change in accounting method, deletion of additions on excise duty and Section 80-I claims, and the non-creation of deemed interest on security deposits. The appeal regarding interest on borrowed funds for investments was dismissed as a question of fact.
The High Court held that the issue involved in the present appeal stands settled against the assessee. This decision is based on a prior order passed by the same Court on 27.11.2025 in a batch of Income Tax References (ITR-62 to 69-1995). The Court found that the present appeal was covered by the ratio decidendi of that earlier judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in terms of the previous order. No specific findings on the merits of the present appeal were elaborated, as it was disposed of based on precedent. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decisions in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. In those cases, the coordinate benches had allowed the writ petitions on similar grounds. The reasoning in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case highlighted that Section 151A and Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 29.03.2022 clearly indicate the applicability of the faceless assessment scheme from the stage of show cause notice under Section 148. The Court found the mandate of Section 144B, 151A, read with the notification, to be lucid, and stated that office memorandums or other instructions cannot override statutory provisions. The operative direction in the cited cases was to grant liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The present judgment followed this precedent, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and subsequent proceedings, with liberty to the revenue to re-initiate the process correctly.
The High Court set aside the order dated October 31, 2011, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula. The Court remanded the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration. The reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties, acknowledging the need for reconsideration in view of various Supreme Court judgments, including Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India and Queen’s Educational Society versus Commissioner of Income Tax, and a co-ordinate bench order in CWP-10104-2011. The competent authority is directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The issue of whether the trust is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court, upon considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue), ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The court explicitly noted that the question of law arising in the appeal is being kept open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings. This decision was based on the revenue's instruction to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the threshold specified in Circular No. 9 of 2024. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court set aside the impugned orders. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Exemption) to pass a fresh order in light of the Supreme Court judgments.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on instructions from the appellant's counsel. The question of law was expressly kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the dismissal was made without commenting on the merits of the case. The reasoning provided was solely based on the appellant's submission, citing recent CBDT circulars as the basis for their decision to withdraw. No substantive legal principles were discussed or established, and therefore, no ratio decidendi for future cases can be extracted. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of as a consequence of the appeal's dismissal.