Loading High Court cases…
495 orders · Page 6 of 10
The High Court held that the requirement to submit audited accounts along with the application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act is directory, not mandatory. The Court noted that the Tribunal found the defect regarding audited accounts to be unnecessarily pointed out, as their submission was not a mandatory condition precedent. The High Court relied on the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust, Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Shahzedanand Charity Trust, and Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Hardeodas Agarwalla Trust, which held that the requirement of audited accounts is directory. Since the non-submission of audited accounts was not a mandatory defect, the application could not be considered defective on that ground. Therefore, the registration should be effective from the date the application was initially submitted. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the present appeal. The dismissal was based on the High Court's previous orders in D.B.I.T. Appeal No. 48/11 (for assessment year 2004-05) and D.B.I.T. Appeal No. 13/08 (for assessment year 2003-04). In those prior appeals, the High Court had already dealt with identical questions of law. For assessment year 2004-05, the proposed question of law was not considered substantial, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. For assessment year 2003-04, the High Court treated the ITAT's finding on the identical issue as a pure finding of fact and subsequently dismissed the appeal. Therefore, following these precedents, the present appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not pressed, primarily due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court observed that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. While the appeal was dismissed as not pressed, the Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular, such as constitutional validity challenges or where the Board's orders were held illegal.
The High Court decided on the issues as follows: 1. **Ashiyana Apartments & Capital Gain:** The additions of Rs. 31,00,000/- and Rs. 13,50,384/- were restored to the Tribunal for re-decision. The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning for deletion to be cryptic and lacking in proper consideration of the AO's detailed points. The Tribunal's view that the AO cannot travel beyond seized material was also held to be improper, as the AO can examine recorded entries and require explanations. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity to both sides. 2. **Jewellery:** The Tribunal's deletion of the addition of Rs. 93,575/- relating to Gold Ornaments and Jewellery was upheld as being in accordance with law. The Revenue's claim was rejected. 3. **Medical Expenses:** The Tribunal's finding with reference to Medical expenses, where an addition of Rs. 99,880/- was made in four cases, was reversed. The Court upheld the AO's addition in this regard. 4. **Seized Documents:** The Tribunal's finding regarding the deletion of the addition of Rs. 44,28,500/- was reversed, and the finding of the AO was upheld. 5. **Property at Raja Park:** The addition of Rs. 1,59,333/- relating to the property at Raja Park was restored to the Tribunal for re-decision, similar to the Ashiyana Apartments issue. 6. **Purchase & Sale of Plots:** The addition of Rs. 2,29,533/- was restored to the Tribunal for re-decision. The Court found the Tribunal's order to be summary and cryptic, accepting the assessee's generalization without proper examination of the AO's specific instances. The matter was remanded for a speaking order. The operative direction was to remand specific issues (Ashiyana Apartments, Capital Gain, Property at Raja Park, Purchase & Sale of Plots) back to the Tribunal for re-decision within four months. Other issues were decided outright.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) had erred in declining registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT found that the CIT's presumption that the earlier objects of the trust continued after the substitution of the object clause in the bye-laws was contrary to the material on record. More importantly, the ITAT ruled that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act that mandates a trust to be registered as a public trust under the relevant State statute as a prerequisite for obtaining registration under Section 12AA. Therefore, the CIT's reason for declining registration on the ground of non-registration under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1958, was not justified. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT for a fresh decision, taking into consideration all relevant aspects. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration.
The High Court allowed the appeal of the Revenue. The Court held that Form ITNS-150, duly signed by the AO and served along with the assessment order, clearly indicated the interest payable under Sections 234A and 234B. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyankumar Ray vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that the statute does not require computations of total income and tax payable to be on the same sheet of paper, and that a signed computation sheet approved by the AO is part of the assessment order. The Court further noted that the substitution of 'shall' for 'may' in Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C by the Finance Act, 1987, made the levy of interest mandatory. The Court distinguished the earlier judgments of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. and CIT vs. Autolite Industries Ltd. by referring to subsequent Supreme Court decisions in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Karanvir Singh Gossal, which affirmed the mandatory nature of interest. The Court concluded that the ITNS 150 is an integral part of the assessment order, and the charging of interest was mandatory, legal, and valid. The orders of the Tribunal and CIT(A) were quashed, and the AO's order was upheld.
The High Court observed that if the issue raised by the appellant regarding Section 80HHC was not addressed by the Tribunal, the appellant should have filed a rectification application instead of approaching the High Court by way of appeal. The Court noted that the appellant raised other questions of law on facts but stated that the appeal cannot be admitted in the absence of a substantial question of law. Regarding the addition sustained by the ITAT on account of unverifiable purchases to the extent of 15%, the Court referred to its earlier decision in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.43/2015, M/s. G.B. Impex Vs. ITO, holding that no substantial question of law was involved in such a matter. The Court found no other substantial question of law involved. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a rectification application before the Tribunal on the question concerning Section 80HHC.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac (which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015), deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. The Court acknowledged that the circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals. It clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Court also noted that if the appeal falls within any of the exceptions specified in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or addition relating to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed in light of the CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015.
The High Court held that the ITAT had erred in passing the impugned order dated June 11, 2009. The earlier order of the ITAT dated November 17, 2006, which allowed the assessee's appeal and set aside the CIT's order denying registration, did not impose any restriction regarding the effective date of registration. Therefore, ignoring the earlier order and refusing registration from the inception date of the Trust (April 1, 2002) was not justified. The Court noted that even the Revenue conceded that the issue of condoning the delay in making the application for registration should be decided in favor of the assessee in light of the High Court's decision in K.U.M.S., Jaisalmer. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the ITAT's order was set aside, and the CIT was directed to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. April 1, 2002, while condoning the delay.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular prescribes a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect in this case was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, the appeal, in light of the circular, was deemed not pressable. The Court clarified that any substantial questions of law raised in the appeal are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. Furthermore, the Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions specified in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity of provisions, Board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or additions relating to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts). The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court reasoned that it had previously dismissed appeals by the Revenue involving identical questions against the ITAT's common order that deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Given that the additions on which the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed had already been deleted by the ITAT and this deletion was upheld by the High Court in prior proceedings, the order impugned, which affirmed the deletion of the penalty, did not warrant any interference. The ratio decidendi is that a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the underlying additions to income have been deleted and such deletion has attained finality. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court noted that the circular sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20,00,000/- for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Court also observed that if the appeal fell within any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity of provisions, Board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or additions relating to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed as not pressed, primarily due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 20 lac, which fell below the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Court as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law, if any, raised in the appeal were left open for examination in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that the AO had provided cogent reasons for disbelieving the purchases, supported by investigation showing suppliers did not exist at the given addresses or denied actual transactions. The assessee's defense of making purchases through brokers and inability to produce parties was found insufficient. The Court observed significant discrepancies in the documents provided by the assessee, including differing addresses for the same party and missing address details in confirmations. The Court emphasized that the onus shifts to the assessee to prove genuineness when suppliers cannot be produced. The Tribunal's disallowance of 15% of unverifiable purchases was considered justified, aligning with previous judgments of the High Court, including M/s G.B. Impex Vs. Income Tax Officer, which dealt with similar disallowances. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were distinguished as factually different.
The High Court held that the appeals did not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee's claim was a wrong claim driven by a situation created as a result of the amendment in Section 80P(4), rather than a consciously false claim, was upheld. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), which established that making an incorrect claim does not equate to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the revenue did not demonstrate that the particulars of income supplied by the assessee were incorrect, erroneous, or false, a mere wrong claim made under a misconception of exemption availability could not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made by the AO based on the statements of 9 persons recorded behind the assessee's back. While the ITAT initially restored the matter, the CIT(A) directed a fresh opportunity for cross-examination. Six out of nine witnesses appeared and were cross-examined. During cross-examination, these witnesses stated that no amount over and above the disclosed sale agreement was paid. The Revenue's contention that the witnesses were tutored lacked evidence. The witnesses admitted to having disclosed the investment in their income tax returns as per the sale agreement and denied paying any excess amount. The Tribunal found no evidence on record to contradict the position emerging from the cross-examination. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A), affirmed by the ITAT, were considered findings of fact that were neither capricious nor perverse. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that the ITAT rightly dismissed the Revenue's applications seeking review of its earlier orders. The Court reasoned that in the absence of any statutory provision empowering an authority to review its own order, such a power cannot be exercised, even if the application is framed as seeking clarification, modification, or correction. The ITAT's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in ACTO Vs. Makkad Plastic Agencies (2011 (4) SCC 750) was found to be appropriate. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the ITAT's decision to dismiss the review applications was based on well-settled legal principles. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition. Since the interim order's period had expired and the petitioner was unaware of the appeal's outcome, the Court directed the ITAT (respondent no.1) to decide the pending appeal within three months, if it had not already been decided. The petitioner's counsel undertook to provide a copy of the High Court's order to the ITAT within a week. The Court did not decide the merits of the original dispute or the validity of the interim order itself, focusing solely on expediting the pending appeal.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect in the instant case was less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular. The operative direction was that the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect in the instant case is less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Court also observed that if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The court noted that the controversy in the present appeal was covered by its previous decision rendered on April 26, 2016, in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) and other connected appeals. In that earlier decision, the court had upheld the ITAT's decision allowing the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act and had accordingly dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Therefore, following that precedent, the present appeal was also dismissed. The specific reasoning of the earlier judgment regarding the allowability of the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) is not detailed here, but it formed the basis for dismissing this appeal. No issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was based on suspicion, relying on the statement of a third party recorded behind the assessee's back. It was noted that the share application money of Rs. 50,00,000/- was received from Moderate Credit Corporation Ltd., a listed company, via account payee cheque, and was refunded by account payee cheque when the company's project was dropped. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence on record to establish that the money received was unaccounted money belonging to the assessee company. Therefore, the AO's finding, based on suspicion, was rightly held unsustainable. The findings of the CIT(A), affirmed by the ITAT, were considered findings of fact that were neither capricious nor perverse. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the High Court's prior judgment rendered on 26.04.2016 in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) and other connected appeals. In that earlier case, the High Court had upheld the ITAT's decision which allowed the claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in identical matters. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court dismissed the present appeal. The specific reasoning for allowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) in the cited case is not detailed here, but the ratio decidendi is that if a similar assessee has been granted exemption in identical circumstances, the present appeal should also be dismissed. No issue was left undecided.
The Tribunal held that while it was undisputed that the assessee, a cooperative society, received sums from its employees and members in excess of the prescribed limit in cash and repaid them otherwise than by account payee cheque or draft, violating Sections 269SS and 269T, there was a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee society was duly registered, its members were agriculturists residing in villages without banking facilities, and the amounts were received as 'amanat rashi' due to urgent need. The assessee held a bona fide belief that these receipts did not constitute loans or deposits requiring acceptance via account payee instruments. The AO had not provided any finding to reject this stand. Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT concurrently found that the assessee, working in a remote area and being ignorant of the relevant provisions, accepted funds under a bona fide belief, constituting a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A), affirmed by the ITAT, regarding reasonable cause were not capricious or perverse, and no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Court relied on its own decision in CIT vs. Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation, which held that if expenditure incurred in a previous year in excess of income is not permitted to be adjusted against the income of the succeeding year, it creates an anomalous situation. The Court reasoned that if a trust takes a loan for charitable expenses and repays it from subsequent year's income, the repayment is exempt, but if it incurs expenses from its corpus and reimburses from subsequent income, it would not be exempt. The Court found this distinction illogical and opted to avoid such an anomaly. The Court distinguished the decision in Shri Akhey Ram Ishwari Prasad Trust, stating it was not preceded by consideration of Section 11(1)(a) and the Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation case, and thus did not lay down a universal principle. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Revenue had accepted the ITAT's decisions on similar issues for earlier assessment years, precluding them from taking a different stand. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the controversy in the present appeal was covered by its earlier decision rendered on the same day in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) and other connected appeals. In those earlier appeals, the High Court had upheld the decision of the ITAT which allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the appeals in those cases were dismissed. Therefore, by applying the same reasoning and precedent, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is also dismissed. The specific findings of the ITAT or the CIT(A) regarding the assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) are not detailed in this judgment, as the High Court's decision is based on the principle of parity with its prior ruling.
The High Court held that since the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the ITAT's order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the High Court on the same day, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. The court did not decide on the merits of the penalty imposition itself, but rather on the procedural consequence of the prior dismissal of appeals related to the underlying additions.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. This is because the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the ITAT's order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the High Court. Consequently, if the additions themselves are not sustainable, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The court found no basis to interfere with the ITAT's order affirming the deletion of the penalty. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Court relied on its own decision in CIT vs. Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation, which held that if expenditure incurred in a previous year in excess of income is not permitted to be adjusted against the income of the succeeding year, it creates an anomalous situation. The Court reasoned that if a trust takes a loan for charitable expenses and repays it from subsequent year's income, the repayment is exempt, but if it incurs expenses from its corpus and reimburses from subsequent income, it would not be exempt. The Court found this distinction illogical and opted to avoid such an anomaly. The Court distinguished the decision in Shri Akhey Ram Ishwari Prasad Trust, stating it was not preceded by consideration of Section 11(1)(a) and the Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation case, and thus did not lay down a universal principle. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Revenue had accepted the ITAT's decisions on similar issues for earlier assessment years, precluding them from taking a different stand. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Court relied on its own decision in CIT vs. Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation, which held that if expenditure incurred in a previous year in excess of income is not permitted to be adjusted against the income of the succeeding year, it creates an anomalous situation. The Court reasoned that if a trust takes a loan for charitable expenses and repays it from subsequent year's income, the repayment is exempt, but if it incurs expenses from its corpus and reimburses from subsequent income, it would not be exempt. The Court found this distinction illogical and opted to avoid such an anomaly. The Court distinguished the decision in Shri Akhey Ram Ishwari Prasad Trust, stating it was not preceded by consideration of Section 11(1)(a) and the Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation case, and thus did not lay down a universal principle. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Revenue had accepted the ITAT's decisions on similar issues for earlier assessment years, precluding them from taking a different stand. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that since the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the court in a connected matter (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.47/13 and connected appeals), no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The High Court held that since the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the ITAT's order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment years had already been dismissed by the High Court on the same day, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. Consequently, the court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed. The court did not decide on the merits of the penalty imposition itself, but rather on the procedural consequence of the prior dismissal of appeals related to the underlying additions.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the principle that the present appeal was covered by the High Court's own judgment delivered on the same day in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 47/13 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar) and other connected appeals. In those identical matters, the High Court had upheld the decision of the ITAT, which had allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the appeals in those cases were dismissed. Applying the same reasoning and precedent, the present appeal filed by the Revenue against Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gharsana, was also dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
The High Court held that the ITAT was justified in allowing the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Court relied on its own precedent in CIT vs. Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation, which established that expenditure incurred in excess of income in a previous year, even if met from accumulated funds or corpus, should be allowed to be set off against the income of a subsequent year. To hold otherwise would create an anomaly where taking a loan for charitable purposes and repaying it from subsequent income would be eligible for exemption, but using accumulated funds for the same purpose and reimbursing from subsequent income would not. The Court distinguished the decision in Shri Akhey Ram Ishwari Prasad Trust, stating it was not preceded by consideration of Section 11(1)(a) and the Maharana Mewar Charitable Foundation case, and therefore, did not lay down a universal principle for all such cases. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Revenue had accepted the ITAT's decision on similar issues for earlier assessment years, precluding it from taking a different stand. The appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, deserves to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court reasoned that the circular specifies monetary limits for filing appeals before the High Court, and this appeal falls below that limit. The Court clarified that substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. It was also observed that if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, Board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or addition relating to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Court reasoned that the circular, particularly paragraphs 3, 9, and 10, indicated that pending appeals below the specified tax limits could be withdrawn or not pressed. The Court clarified that substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The court noted that the tax effect in the instant case was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Courts. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The court also observed that if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (e.g., constitutional validity, board's order held illegal, revenue audit objection accepted, or undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue was at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 lac. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The ratio of the decision is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits in the CBDT circular should generally be dismissed as not pressed, unless they fall under specific exceptions.
The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the CIT(A) and held that the amount of Rs. 1,38,60,000/- deposited by the assessee included an advance payment of Rs. 18,08,219/-. This advance payment, being a deposit towards the contract and not income earned in the relevant assessment year, could not be treated as the assessee's income. The Court found that the CIT(A)'s and ITAT's findings were based on facts and were not capricious or perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed in limine. The ratio decidendi is that advance payments made by a contractor towards a contract, even if deposited with a government entity and subject to TCS, do not constitute income for the assessment year in which the advance is paid, provided it is not earned income.
The High Court held that Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to a body or authority established, constituted, or appointed by or under any Central, State, or Provincial Act that provides for the administration of any public religious or charitable trusts or endowments. In this case, the Bade Mathureshji Temple Board was constituted by the District Judge under Section 92 of the CPC, which is a Central Act, for the administration of a public religious charitable trust. Therefore, the Board was established under a Central Act for the administration of a public religious charitable trust, making Section 10(23BBA) applicable. The Court found that Sections 11 and 12 of the Act apply when a body is not created in the manner specified under Section 10(23BBA), which is not the case here. The Tribunal's decision was deemed correct, and the appeal was found to involve no substantial question of law. The Court also referred to the Orissa High Court's decision in Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & ors, which supported the Tribunal's reasoning. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The High Court held that Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies to a body or authority established, constituted, or appointed by or under any Central, State, or Provincial Act, which provides for the administration of any public religious or charitable trusts or endowments. In this case, the Bade Mathureshji Temple Board was constituted by the District Judge under Section 92 of the CPC, which is a Central Act, for the administration of a public religious charitable trust. Therefore, Section 10(23BBA) was rightly applied by the Tribunal. The Court clarified that Sections 11 and 12 apply when a body is not created in the manner specified under Section 10(23BBA). The High Court found that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law and referred to the Orissa High Court's decision in Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. The impugned order of the ITAT was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed as not pressed. The primary reasoning is based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 20 lac for filing appeals before the High Courts. Since the tax effect in the instant case is indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, the appeal falls below the prescribed threshold. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Court also noted that if the appeal falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular (e.g., constitutional validity of provisions, Board's order held illegal, undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts), the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT circulars should generally be withdrawn or not pressed, unless they fall under specific exceptions.
The High Court held that the instant appeal, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court reasoned that the circular, particularly paragraphs 9 and 10, envisages that the instructions apply retrospectively to pending appeals and appeals to be filed henceforth, subject to exceptions. The monetary limits specified in paragraph 3 of the circular, which sets Rs. 20,00,000/- as the limit for appeals before the High Court, were deemed applicable. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. It was also observed that if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular (para 8), the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the High Court. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal, if any, are left open to be examined in future appropriate proceedings. The Revenue was granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal fell under any of the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, as the tax effect was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lac, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals before the High Courts. The court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding if they arise in the future. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the reference falls under any of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. The operative direction was to dismiss the reference as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeals/references, having a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakhs (which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals/references before the High Courts), deserve to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals/references, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding if they arise in the future. The Court also observed that if any appeal/reference falls under the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue is at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The operative direction was that the appeals/references stand dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeals/references, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakhs, deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals/references, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Court also observed that if any appeal/reference fell under the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. Consequently, the appeals/references were dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeals/references should be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect in these cases was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakhs, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals/references before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals/references, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Court also observed that if any appeal/reference falls under the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The operative direction was that the appeals/references stand dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeals/references should be dismissed as not pressed, taking into account CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 and the fact that the tax effect in these cases was indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakhs, which is the prescribed limit for filing appeals/references before the High Courts. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals/references, if any, are left open to be examined in an appropriate proceeding in the future. The Court also observed that if any appeal/reference falls under the exceptions mentioned in the Circular dated 10.12.2015, the Revenue would be at liberty to move an application for recalling the order. The operative direction was that the appeals/references stand dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeals/references, with a tax effect indisputably less than Rs. 20 lakhs (which is less than the prescribed limit for filing appeals/references before the High Court), deserved to be dismissed as not pressed, in light of CBDT Circular dated 10.12.2015. The Court clarified that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals/references, if any, were left open to be examined in an appropriate future proceeding. The Revenue was also granted liberty to move an application for recalling the order if the appeal/reference fell under any of the exceptions specified in the Circular dated 10.12.2015. The operative direction was that the appeals/references stand dismissed as not pressed.