Loading High Court cases…
327 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the tax effect involved in the appeals being less than Rs. 1 crore, as per the directives issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Specifically, Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, its clarification dated 20.08.2019, and Circular No. 05/2019 dated 05.02.2019 (extending the applicability of Circular No. 3 of 2018 to wealth tax appeals) were considered. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, as per CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the Revenue. The operative direction was that all the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the appeal. Regarding the TUFS subsidy, it noted the agreement treated it as a non-interest bearing term loan, adjusted against the loan account after a lock-in period, and cited the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in CIT vs. Shyam Lal Bansal, which relied on Supreme Court rulings in CIT vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. & Ors. The Court found these subsidies were received as capital receipts. For the Focus Market Scheme subsidy, the Court agreed with the ITAT that it was not an export incentive but a capital receipt, citing Ponni Sugars. For the electricity subsidy, the Court concurred with the CIT(A) and ITAT that it was a capital receipt, referencing a previous Division Bench ruling in CIT, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement, and applying the principles from Ponni Sugars and Sahney Steel. Therefore, all subsidies were held to be capital receipts and not taxable.
The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The decision was based on the explicit provisions of Circular No.17/2019 [F.No.279/MISC./142/2007-ITJ (PT.)] dated 08.08.2019, as clarified by a subsequent communication dated 20.08.2019, and Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018, which was extended to wealth tax appeals via Circular No. 05/2019 dated 05.02.2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs.1 crore. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.
The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) which stipulate monetary limits for filing appeals. The court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, which fell below the threshold for pursuing appeals as per the said circulars. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not delve into the merits of the substantive wealth tax issues.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1 crore should be withdrawn. This circular was further clarified and made applicable to wealth tax appeals. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was the dismissal of all the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the tax effect being less than Rs.1 crore, as per the circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. The circulars stipulated a threshold for filing appeals, and when the tax effect falls below this threshold, the revenue is permitted to withdraw such appeals. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court, in view of Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, which is the threshold stipulated in the aforementioned circular for withdrawal of appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original tax dispute or any specific grounds of appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.
The High Court, in view of Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, which is the threshold stipulated in the aforementioned circular for withdrawal of appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original tax dispute or any specific grounds of appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.
The High Court, in view of Circular No. 17/2019 and its clarification, granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning provided is that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, which is the threshold stipulated in the aforementioned circular for withdrawal of appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original tax dispute or any specific grounds of appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a procedural basis.
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities and the ITAT were correct and no error of law was committed. The Court reasoned that there was no obligation on the part of the Revenue to examine the seller of the property to determine its value, profit, or real cost. This was because an incriminating document related to the transaction was seized from the assessee's possession. The assessee had the opportunity to summon the seller for any necessary clarification. Therefore, the addition of ₹23,78,500 was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the contribution made to the State Renewal Fund is an admissible deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning is based on a previous decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. [ITA No.10/2018 decided on 13.03.2018], which was followed. The Tribunal affirmed that the renewal fund was set up by the State Government to provide a safety net for workers affected by restrictions in State Public Enterprises. A finding of fact was recorded that the contribution was solely for the welfare and benefit of the employees. The Tribunal reasoned that it is for the assessee to decide on business expediency for expenditures, and such expenditure for employee welfare is allowable. The existence of a legal obligation further supported the allowability. The ratio is that expenditures incurred for employee welfare and benefit, especially when there's a legal obligation or business expediency, are deductible under Section 37(1). The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that no question of law arose from the concurrent findings of the lower appellate authorities. Regarding the addition under Section 68 (₹16,56,000/-) for cash received but not reported, the assessee had the primary onus to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the borrowed amounts from existing parties. The materials on record indicated that the assessee failed to produce sufficient materials to convince the revenue authorities on at least two of the three required ingredients. As for the HUF-owned property, the Tribunal noted that the family settlement pertained to ancestral property of the assessee's father. Upon division, the share falling to the assessee became his individual property, consistent with the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chander Sen. Therefore, the inferences drawn by the lower appellate authorities were not illegal. No interference was called for, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate authorities. The Court reasoned that the AO's decision, endorsed by the CIT(A) and ITAT, was based on a proper appreciation of the facts and documents recovered during the search. The assessee's premises yielded incriminating documents, and the assessee made certain admissions in his statement regarding invested amounts. The Court considered the assessee's later retraction, made over a year later when filing the return, stating Mr. Jagdish Panjwani was not the owner of the mines, as not being conclusive. The initial burden on the assessee to show that the transaction had not taken place, that the earlier statement was incorrect, or that the recovered documents did not support the findings, was not discharged. Therefore, the concurrent findings of fact were deemed warranted, and the ITAT's findings were considered findings of fact. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the instructions dated 08th August, 2019, which were issued in furtherance of CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018. These instructions revised the monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department. Specifically, the monetary limit for appeals before the High Court was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,00,000. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the monetary limit in the present appeal was below this enhanced threshold. Therefore, in light of these instructions, the appeal was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue before the High Court must meet the prescribed monetary limit to be maintainable. No specific amount in dispute was recorded in the judgment.
The High Court held that the present appeals are dismissed in light of the instructions dated 08th August, 2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing income tax appeals. The court noted that the appellant's counsel submitted that the monetary limit in these appeals was less than the prescribed amount. However, the operative part of the order states the appeals are dismissed 'in view of above', referring to the enhanced monetary limits. The ratio decidendi appears to be that appeals filed by the Revenue that do not meet the enhanced monetary threshold specified by the CBDT are to be dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the original assessment or the ITAT's order is recorded, as the dismissal is based on procedural/administrative grounds related to litigation policy.
The High Court dismissed the present appeals. The decision was based on the instructions dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which enhanced the monetary limits for filing income tax appeals. The instructions stipulated that appeals before the High Court should have a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000. Since the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the monetary limit in these appeals was less than the prescribed amount, the Court found the appeals to be not maintainable under the revised guidelines. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Department that do not meet the enhanced monetary thresholds specified by the CBDT are liable to be dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.
The High Court granted the appellant's permission to withdraw the appeal. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019, which allows for the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold (in this case, less than Rs. 1 crore). The reasoning is purely procedural, adhering to the directives issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. No findings were made on the merits of the original dispute. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, and its subsequent clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular mandates the withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 1 crore. Since the tax effect in the present appeals was stated to be below this threshold, the appellant's request for withdrawal was acceded to. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made as the appeals were disposed of on procedural grounds related to the tax effect threshold stipulated in the CBDT circular.
The High Court granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019, which specifies a monetary limit for filing appeals, and a clarification dated August 20, 2019. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn because the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 1 crore, as per the aforementioned circular. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold stipulated in the relevant CBDT circulars, and for which permission to withdraw is sought, should be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Court found that for both additions, the AO relied on the statement of Madan Mohan Gupta, a Director of Hemang Construction Private Limited. The Court noted that Gupta's statement, considered an admission by the AO, merely confirmed the assessee's directorship. It did not contain any admission by the assessee that amounts paid for the acquisition of plots by the company belonged to him or that he had funded the company. Consequently, the Court held that the questions of law urged by the Revenue did not arise, as the findings of the ITAT were purely factual. No substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that there was no merit in the Revenue's argument and that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The Court agreed with the ITAT's conclusion that the addition of ₹5,50,000 was unwarranted due to the lack of any material or evidence in support of Madan Mohan Gupta's statement. The ITAT had reasoned that the AO made the addition solely on presumption, without any concrete evidence of a land purchase transaction by the assessee during the relevant period or surrounding years. Furthermore, the ITAT noted that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine Madan Mohan Gupta, rendering the addition unsustainable. The Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment also notes that another issue, in which the assessee had appealed to the Tribunal, was a subject matter of remand and the Revenue had not appealed against that decision.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, dated 08.08.2019, and its clarification dated 20.08.2019. The circular and clarification stipulate a threshold for pursuing appeals based on the tax effect. As the tax effect in the present appeals was recorded as being less than Rs.1 crore, the revenue's request for withdrawal was acceded to. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.
The High Court granted permission to the appellant (revenue) to withdraw the appeals. This decision was based on the Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India, dated 08.08.2019, and its clarification dated 20.08.2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in the appeals was less than Rs. 1 crore, which was the basis for the revenue's request. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.