Loading High Court cases…
572 orders · Page 3 of 12
The Tribunal (High Court) granted the appellant's (Revenue's) request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment explicitly states that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals, citing the CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The court explicitly stated that the formulated substantial questions of law were kept open. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the cheque carried a presumption of legal liability and consideration, which the accused failed to rebut. The concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the dishonour of the cheque and due service of notice were upheld.
The learned counsel for the appellant (M/s. Google India Private Ltd.) submitted that they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The pending interlocutory applications (I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024) were also disposed of as they did not survive for consideration after the withdrawal of the main appeal. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings initiated for AY 2006-07 were invalid. It reasoned that Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, stipulates that a registered document operates from the time it would have commenced to operate if no registration was required, not from the date of registration. The undisputed facts showed that the sale transaction, including execution of the agreement, receipt of consideration, and handing over of possession, was complete in AY 2005-06 and was disclosed in the returns for that year. The sale deed's registration in July 2008 did not alter the AY in which the transaction was completed. The Tribunal also noted that in AY 2006-07, neither the sale of immovable property nor the registration of the document had taken place, thus providing no occasion for initiating proceedings under Section 148 to determine capital gains. Consequently, the impugned notice and order were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that the operative date of a sale transaction for income tax purposes is the date of its completion, not the date of registration, especially when supported by Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the impugned assessment order and to pursue the appeal that had already been filed against the rectification order. The court did not decide the merits of the assessment or rectification orders. The ratio of the decision is that when a party realizes they have alternative statutory remedies available and have already availed one, and wishes to pursue other statutory remedies, the writ petition can be disposed of as not pressed with liberty to pursue those remedies.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition as 'not pressed'. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the remedy of appeal that had already been availed. The Court explicitly stated that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the issues that were raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority. No decision was made on the merits of any of the issues that might have been raised in the writ petition. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to pursue the appeal.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction to Respondent No. 2 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-I). The court ordered that the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice dated August 26, 2022, must be considered and decided within four weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. If, upon consideration, it is found that the seized documents have no relation to the pending appeal and there are no other impediments to their release, then the documents shall be released within two weeks thereafter. The court did not make a determination on the merits of whether the documents should be released, but rather directed the authority to decide the matter expeditiously.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 was non-speaking, as it merely stated that the reply filed by the petitioner was unsatisfactory without providing any specific reasons or analysis. This was considered a violation of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the principles of natural justice, as well as the departmental guidelines. The Court relied on its own decision in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent to proceed with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in accordance with law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the reassessment proceedings themselves, only on the procedural defect in the order.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal as not pressed, granting the appellant liberty to apply under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The reasoning is based on the appellant's submission that they are not pressing the petition and wish to avail the scheme. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's reliance on Circular No. 12/2024, which permits applications if litigation is pending on the date of application. The appeal is deemed to be pending solely for the purpose of making an application under the DTVSV Scheme. No specific finding on the merits of the original appeal was made, as it was withdrawn. The operative direction is to grant liberty to apply under the scheme.
The Tribunal held that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not pressing the writ petition. The petitioner sought liberty to approach the Appellate Authority for an expeditious disposal of their appeal. The Court granted this liberty. The writ petition was disposed of as not pressed. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court decided to dispose of the writ petition as not pressed. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to apply under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The court further clarified that the writ petition would be deemed to be pending solely for the purpose of making an application under the DTVSV Scheme. This decision was based on the petitioner's counsel not pressing the petition and seeking the aforementioned liberty, supported by the circular regarding pending litigation. No specific findings on the merits of the original challenge were made, as the petition was withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was non-speaking and was passed in violation of the said provision. The Court observed that the petitioner's reply was brushed aside by merely stating that it was not satisfactory, without proper consideration. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer [{2024} 462 ITR 478 (Raj)]. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent (ITO) to proceed with the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
The Tribunal held that the procedure prescribed under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was violated. The order under Section 148A(d) recorded that the petitioner had not filed a reply, which was contrary to the admitted fact that a reply was filed. The Tribunal noted that the order presumed the petitioner had no explanation because he allegedly did not furnish requisite details and supporting documents. Crucially, the order failed to consider the petitioner's denial of the transaction and his submission that Form 26AS/AIR did not reflect any property purchase by him during the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply and without providing the material available with the Department. Therefore, the order was set aside for violating the prescribed procedure and guidelines. The matter was remitted back to the respondent No.1 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) to proceed in accordance with law.
The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the petitioner's request. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a proper and correct writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) sought permission to withdraw the appeal in view of the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024, stating that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rupees Two Crores. The Tribunal granted this request. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial question of law, if any was formulated, was kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises.
The High Court held that the sufficiency of the material for reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a matter that can be gone into by the Writ Court at this stage. The Court observed that the reopening is based on certain material disclosed during a search in the premises of another person, and the relevancy of this material is not in dispute. The Court distinguished between the relevancy and sufficiency of the material, stating that the sufficiency of the material should not be examined by the Writ Court when there is no addition to income yet, only a reopening of assessment. The Court granted liberty to the assessees to raise all available grounds during the reassessment proceedings to satisfy the assessing authority that no addition is warranted. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
The High Court held that the issue of sufficiency of material for reopening assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a matter of jurisdiction but rather an assessment of the material on record. The Court found that the relevancy of the material was not in dispute. Therefore, the sufficiency of the material should not be gone into by the Writ Court at the stage of reopening when no addition has been made, and the reopening is solely based on the disclosure of certain material. The Court granted the assessees liberty to raise all available grounds during the reassessment proceedings to satisfy the authority that no addition is warranted. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with this liberty.
The High Court held that the issue of sufficiency of material for reopening assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not a matter of jurisdiction but rather an assessment of the material on record. The Court noted that the relevancy of the material was not in dispute. Therefore, the sufficiency of the material should not be gone into by the Writ Court at this stage, especially when there is no addition to income yet, only a reopening of assessment based on disclosed material. The Court granted the assessee liberty to raise all available grounds during the reassessment proceedings to satisfy the Assessing Officer that no addition is warranted. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed with this liberty.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rupees Two Crores, and in view of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal also stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open, and the department is at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises.
The Tribunal upheld the finding of negligence but adjusted the deceased's annual income by deducting the taxable slab and applied a multiplier and future prospects to arrive at a revised compensation amount.
The Tribunal held that the present appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable in view of Circular 9 of 2024. This decision was based on the joint submission of both parties that the issue is covered by a prior judgment of a Coordinate Bench. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the proposed substantial questions of law are kept open. The reasoning is procedural, relying on the parties' consensus and a specific circular. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal. No substantive issue was decided on merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable in view of Circular 9 of 2024. The decision was based on the joint submission of the learned counsel for both parties that the present issue is covered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/2021 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Satish Kumar Agarwal), decided on 27.09.2024. The Court did not decide the proposed substantial questions of law on merits, explicitly keeping them open. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that if an appeal is rendered non-maintainable by a subsequent circular and this is jointly submitted by the parties, the appeal should be dismissed on that ground, without delving into the merits of the substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal noted that the substantial question of law, if any formulated, was kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arose. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning provided is solely based on the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below Rupees Two Crores, as per the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024. The Tribunal granted permission for withdrawal. The formulated substantial question of law was expressly kept open. The department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court, in view of the joint submission by learned counsel for the parties that the present issue is covered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/2021, decided on 27.09.2024) and in light of Circular 9 of 2024, dismissed the present appeal as non-maintainable. The Court explicitly stated that the proposed substantial questions of law are kept open. It was also noted that if any interference by the Hon'ble Apex Court occurs against the aforementioned order (presumably the prior judgment), it shall be open for the appellant to seek revival by moving an appropriate application. No specific findings were made on the merits of the income tax assessment itself.
The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment explicitly states that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. Furthermore, the department is granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeals if the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as non-maintainable. This decision was based on the joint submission of learned counsel for both parties that the issue was covered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.8/2021, decided on 27.09.2024, and in view of Circular 9 of 2024. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the proposed substantial questions of law were kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment also noted that if the Hon'ble Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned order, it shall be open for the appellant to seek revival of the appeal by moving an appropriate application.
The Tribunal granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, which stipulates a threshold for appeals. Since the tax effect in this appeal was below Rupees Two Crores, the Revenue was permitted to withdraw. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The formulated substantial question of law was kept open, and the department was granted liberty to move an appropriate application for revival if the need arises. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court, in view of the joint submission by the learned counsel for the parties that the present issue is covered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 8/2021, decided on 27.09.2024), dismissed the present appeal as non-maintainable in view of Circular 9 of 2024. The proposed substantial questions of law were kept open. The Court also noted that if any interference by the Hon'ble Apex Court occurs against the aforementioned order, it shall be open for the appellant to seek revival by moving an appropriate application. No finding was reached on the merits of the case.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. Since no one appeared for the parties on the date of the hearing, the Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition. No specific findings were made on the issues raised, and no ratio decidendi can be extracted as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds. The Court did not leave any issue undecided; rather, it did not decide any issue on merits.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, held that a fall in the value of shares, even without actual transfer, can be considered a capital loss. It set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and allowed the carry forward of the business loss.