Loading High Court cases…
572 orders · Page 5 of 12
The High Court recorded the submission of the Income Tax Department's counsel that the appeal was to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court decided the substantial questions of law based on its prior decision in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 329/2018. For the first substantial question of law, concerning whether employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESI is governed by Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Court held in favour of the appellant-Department. This implies that the Court found the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) to be applicable, and the deduction for late deposits would not be allowed. For the second substantial question of law, as reformulated, concerning the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 85,42,00,000/- on account of advance against depreciation, the Court held against the appellant-Department. This means the ITAT's deletion of the disallowance was upheld. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that substantial questions 1 and 2 are covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1. The Supreme Court held that employees' share of PF and ESI deducted by the employer must be deposited by the due date stipulated in the respective Acts (EPF Act and ESI Act). Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, despite its non-obstante clause, does not provide leeway for late deposit of employee contributions, which are considered 'others' income held in trust. Therefore, the deduction is only permissible if deposited on or before the due date mandated by the respective welfare enactments. Consequently, these questions were answered in favour of the appellant-Department. Regarding substantial question 3, the High Court noted the assessee's reliance on the Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in CIT vs. NHPC Ltd., which was accepted by the Department. This decision held that Advance Against Depreciation is not income for the relevant accounting year and cannot be carried forward through the Profit and Loss account. As the Revenue could not distinguish this decision or refute the acceptance by the Department, substantial question 3 was answered against the appellant-Department. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court set aside the trial court's order, allowing the petitioner to operate his bank accounts except for the disputed amount of Rs. 58,00,000/-. The Magistrate was directed to permit the petitioner to withdraw amounts exceeding the disputed sum.
The Tribunal permitted the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024, which allows for withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below Rupees Two Crores. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open, meaning the merits of the substantial question were not decided. No operative directions were issued regarding the tax liability or assessment.
The Tribunal (High Court) granted permission to the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the CBDT Circular dated 17.09.2024, which allows withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below Rupees Two Crores. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The formulated substantial question of law was expressly kept open, meaning it was not decided on merits.
The High Court held that the impugned order of the ITAT, passed ex parte, was made without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The court noted that the notice of hearing for 13.02.2024 was served on 12.02.2024, and a request for adjournment was made. The court found that the ITAT's decision to proceed ex parte under these circumstances was not in line with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with an adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal before the High Court was allowed.
The Tribunal granted the appellant's (Revenue's) request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law was kept open. No decision on the merits of the case was rendered. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the petitioner's advocate submitted that the petitioner had decided not to pursue the review petition and requested to withdraw it. A memo to this effect was filed. The Court ordered that the memo be kept on record and granted leave for withdrawal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were imposed. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the original appeal or the grounds for review, as the review petition itself was withdrawn by the petitioner.
The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated 5th December 2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the issue involved in this appeal was similar to the one in ITA No. 181/2019, which had been disposed of on 29.11.2022. Following the precedent set in the earlier appeal, the Court answered the questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs were awarded. The specific questions of law decided and the reasoning from ITA No. 181/2019 are not detailed in this judgment, but the outcome indicates a favorable decision for the assessee on the merits of the issue.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific observations and directions. It directed that the cash seized from the petitioner's house during the search on October 14, 2021, shall be adjusted against his tax liability, as assessed by the order dated March 29, 2024, in accordance with Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, the Court directed that the gold seized from the petitioner's house may also be put on auction sale, in accordance with the law. The amount realized from the auction of gold is to be adjusted against the tax liability arising from the assessment order dated March 29, 2024. The Court made these directions without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to pursue his statutory appeal. The issue of charging interest on late payment was implicitly addressed by directing the adjustment of seized assets to meet the liability, thereby facilitating timely payment and potentially avoiding interest accrual.
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that no substantial question of law arises in the present case. The Court also noted a Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes) on September 17, 2024, which instructs not to file or pursue appeals before the High Court where the tax effect is Rupees Two Crores. Based on these two grounds, the Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the assessment, interest, or penalty are not detailed in this judgment, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural and administrative grounds. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court accepted the department's submission that the appeal should be disposed of as withdrawn based on the revised monetary limits. The appeal was dismissed in light of the new circular.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of the writ petition as having rendered infructuous. This decision was based solely on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that subsequent events had rendered the petition infructuous. No other issues were adjudicated upon, and no reasoning beyond accepting the petitioner's submission was provided. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition accordingly. No issues were left undecided as the petition was disposed of on a preliminary submission.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 132B(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, clearly entitle the petitioner-assessee to interest on the refund amount. The respondents were obligated to examine the petitioner's representations and pay the interest allowable under the law. The Tribunal noted that no orders were passed on the petitioner's claim for interest, nor were any reasons provided. Regarding Section 244A(1A), the Tribunal acknowledged the petitioner's submission that it grants interest on interest where there is a delay in payment of interest. The Tribunal concluded that the referred provisions necessitate consideration of the claim for interest on refund, which the respondent department should have undertaken. Since neither the representations were decided nor a reply was filed even after 13 years, the Tribunal directed the respondents to calculate the interest payable on the refund amount as per the relevant provisions and pay the due amount to the petitioner within three months. The issue of interest on interest under Section 244A(1A) was implicitly considered and directed to be calculated as part of the overall interest payable.
The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, observed that the assessee was duly served with a notice and filed a reply. The Assessment Officer passed a detailed order. The Court noted that the issue of whether any addition is liable to be made is a matter for the Assessing Authority to consider during the assessment proceedings. Finding no grounds for violation of principles of natural justice or absence of jurisdiction, the Court left the matter to be considered by the Assessing Authority. The Court directed that the submissions made by the assessee before the High Court shall be duly considered by the Assessing Authority to decide whether it is a case for levy of tax on escaped income. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner wished to withdraw the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court ordered that the writ petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn. There was no decision on the merits of any substantive issue related to income tax law, as the case was disposed of based on the petitioner's request for withdrawal. No specific findings or reasoning on any tax-related matter were provided, and no operative directions beyond the dismissal as withdrawn were issued.
The High Court, in its judgment dated October 19, 2016, which covered the present appeals, referred to the contentions of the parties. The Court noted that the issue was concluded by decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court, against which Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) had been dismissed. Based on these precedents, the High Court held that the issues were required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed. The operative direction was that the appeals were dismissed, implying the Tribunal's order allowing the assessee's appeal (and thus holding that TDS was not deductible) was upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present appeals was covered by its own previous judgment dated October 19, 2016, in CIT vs. Principal Officer JVVNL and other connected matters. In that prior judgment, the Court had relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court, against which Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) had been dismissed. Consequently, the issues were answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. The Court found that the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on the disputed charges. As a result, the assessee was not liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A). The appeals were accordingly disposed of based on this precedent.
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. While acknowledging that a writ petition can be entertained notwithstanding an alternative remedy in cases of breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction, the Court found that the petitioner had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings. The Court considered the submission regarding a request for adjournment and noted that the email requesting adjournment was sent on September 22, 2021, after the deadline of September 20, 2021. The Court found the Assessing Authority's decision not to grant adjournment to be correct. The Court also cited 'United Bank v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors.' for the principle that writ courts ordinarily shall not entertain a petition if an effective remedy is available, especially in matters involving recovery of public money. The Court concluded that no other circumstance pertaining to a breach of natural justice was pleaded, and other pleas could be raised before the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 246-A.
The Tribunal held that a writ petition is not maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal has already been availed and is pending. The reasoning was that two parallel remedies cannot be allowed to continue. Since the petitioner had already preferred an appeal, the writ petition was not maintainable. The Tribunal stated that all grounds raised in the writ petition would be available to be raised in the pending appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal as early as possible. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The High Court, upon hearing both parties, agreed to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the order dated 08.02.2024 passed in D.B Civil Writ Petition No.1500/2021 and batch of petitions. The Court directed Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota) to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The decision was to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of the petitioner's first appearance before Respondent No. 2. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 on 09.09.2024. The core principle applied was procedural fairness and adherence to previous judicial pronouncements in similar matters, ensuring timely resolution of the petitioner's representation by the tax authorities.
The Tribunal set aside its earlier order and remitted the matter back to the ITAT to decide the appeal afresh. The High Court noted that from the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, it was not evident that the documents claimed to have been produced before the AO and Appellate Authority were considered. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, holding that no documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant to explain the cash deposit. The High Court clarified that it was not commenting on whether these documents were indeed produced before the AO or Appellate Authority, nor on the implications of not filing original affidavits if required. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the appellant.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Genpact India Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. The Court found no case made out for indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to prefer the statutory appeal. The Court granted this permission, directing that if the appeal is preferred within six weeks with an application for condonation of delay, it may be considered by the appellate authority, taking into account Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The writ petitions were disposed of with this liberty.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Genpact India Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the Court noted that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was available to the petitioner. The Court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to prefer the statutory appeal. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within six weeks along with a condonation of delay application, it may be considered by the appellate authority, taking into account Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeals were disposed of with this liberty.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and that no case was made out for indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court referred to the decision in Genpact India Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. The petitioner's counsel was granted permission to withdraw the writ petitions. The court also directed that if the statutory appeal is preferred within six weeks with an application for condonation of delay, it may be considered by the appellate authority, taking into account Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petitions with the liberty granted to the petitioner.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on a statement made by the respondents' counsel. The respondents were directed to supply the satisfaction note and relevant material to the petitioner within four weeks. Upon receipt of this material, the petitioner was granted a period of four weeks to file her reply or objections. The court did not decide on the validity of the Section 153C notices themselves but facilitated a procedural step to allow the petitioner to respond. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness, including providing necessary documents for a taxpayer to respond, is paramount, and the court can direct such steps to ensure a fair process. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of based on the agreed-upon procedure.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the revenue did not fall within the exceptions carved out in the CBDT circular dated March 15, 2024. The Court noted that there was no opinion from the Board deeming it necessary to contest these matters in the interest of justice or revenue. The circular dated March 15, 2024, was explicitly stated to be in supersession of all earlier circulars. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on account of the monetary limit prescribed by the circular. The Court clarified that the dismissal was based on the monetary limit and that the substantial question of law was kept open. No specific findings were made on the merits of the tax disputes themselves.
The High Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and deemed it proper to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the issue of limitation for filing an appeal can be addressed by filing an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. The aggrieved person can satisfy the Appellate Authority that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. The petitioner is permitted to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay and to raise all possible legal grounds for not preferring the appeal within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
The Tribunal held that the second proviso to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, comes into play only after the Assessing Officer has determined the liability and is satisfied that the nature and source of acquisition of the asset have been explained by the person concerned. In the present case, since the Assessing Officer had not passed any order on the application for release, the second proviso would not be applicable. The Tribunal found the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in *Dipak Kumar Agarwal* to be persuasive, as it considered Section 132B(4)(a) & (b) and concluded that the second proviso does not contemplate automatic release upon the expiry of 120 days. The Tribunal considered its own previous judgment in *Harish Forex Services Pvt. Ltd.* to be per incuriam as it did not deal with Section 132B(4)(a) & (b) and did not consider that the second proviso is subject to the first proviso. Consequently, the prayer for refund of the amount was not granted. However, the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioners' application within four weeks from the receipt of the order, by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioners. It was further stated that if the petitioners satisfy the source of funds, the amount must be refunded with interest as provided under Section 132B(4)(a) & (b).
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the Civil Writ Petition. The court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the concerned Appellate Authority. The reasoning for this decision is based on the petitioner's counsel explicitly stating the desire to withdraw the petition and seek alternative recourse. Therefore, the operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn, with the specified liberty. No other issues were decided on merits, and no specific provisions of the Income Tax Act were discussed in relation to the merits of any dispute.
The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing at length, realized that the Assessing Officer had already passed an order in pursuance to the demand. Consequently, the appellant was not pressing the appeals and requested liberty to raise all the issues at an appropriate stage. The Tribunal accepted this submission and dismissed the appeals as not pressed, granting the liberty as prayed for. No decision was made on the merits of the case.