Loading High Court cases…
572 orders · Page 6 of 12
The High Court accepted the Department's submission and disposed of the appeal. The decision was based on the new circular which set a higher monetary threshold for filing appeals.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches. The Court noted that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act was passed on 06.04.2023, and a notice of reassessment was simultaneously issued. The petitioner did not challenge this order for a considerable period and approached the Court only when reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 142(1). The Court found no justification for the delay in challenging the order. While not deciding the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner, the Court held that these issues could be raised before the assessing authority during the reassessment proceedings, who would consider them before passing the final order. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the delay.
The High Court held that the cash deposit could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. The court found that the addition was based on conjecture and suspicion rather than cogent evidence, and that the source of the money should have been examined in the preceding assessment year.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to revive it if she does not get relief in the pending writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that an assessment order was passed on 07.12.2019, with an addition of Rs. 1,44,52,700/- concerning old currency disclosed by the assessee, based on Section 115BBE. While the appellate authority had proceeded to dismiss the appeal upholding the assessment, the Court emphasized that the interim order dated 15.01.2021, directing no coercive steps for recovery, remains in effect. Therefore, even though the appeal was dismissed, no recovery can be made against the petitioner as long as the interim order continues. The order passed in appeal would only take effect for recovery purposes if the writ petition challenging Section 115BBE is dismissed. The respondents are bound by the interim order, and no coercive action can be taken for recovery of the disputed amount.
The Tribunal allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appellant was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal against the same impugned order, along with a stay application and a limitation application.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court also granted the appellant the liberty to apply under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' Scheme, as prayed for by the appellant's counsel. No substantive issues concerning the Income Tax Act were decided on merits.
The High Court noted the joint submission by learned counsel for both parties that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, vide its order dated March 18, 2015, had set aside the order of the Assessing Authority. Crucially, the CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Authority to allow the deduction to the petitioner under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the writ petition was rendered infructuous. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original assessment or the demand, as the subsequent order of the CIT(A) had already provided relief to the petitioner by directing the allowance of deduction under Section 80P, thereby nullifying the need for the writ petition to proceed.
The High Court answered substantial question No.1 against the Department, in favour of the respondent-assessee. This was based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. The Court noted that the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority judgment clarified that amounts charged by statutory corporations for essential public functions/services, such as development and town planning, may resemble trade but are prima facie to be excluded from the mischief of business or commercial receipts if their objects are for advancement of public purposes. The Court also stated that while scrutiny is required to determine if charges are significantly higher than cost, the Supreme Court's ruling addressed the core issue. Consequently, substantial question No.2, being consequential to the first, did not require separate adjudication. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The decision was based on a joint submission by the learned counsel for both parties. They informed the Court that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, had passed an order on March 15, 2016, in ITA Nos. 146 to 149/JODH/2015. In this order, the ITAT had set aside the order of the Assessing Authority and directed the Assessing Authority to grant the petitioner deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of this ITAT order.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was no longer res integra and had been decided by the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer Vs. Arihant Tiles & Marbles P. Limited (supra). The Supreme Court, in that case, observed that blocks converted into polished slabs and tiles after undergoing a process result in the emergence of a new and distinct commodity. The original block ceases to be a marble block and becomes a slab or tile. The Court found that this constituted not only manufacture but also an activity beyond manufacture, bringing a new product into existence. Therefore, the activity undertaken by the assessees constituted manufacture or production in terms of Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court also noted that accepting the Department's contention would have serious revenue consequences, as assessees might claim exemption from excise duty and sales tax. The appeal was allowed, and the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The tribunal held that the claimant, as the husband of the deceased, is presumed to be dependent. It also corrected the deduction for personal expenses from 1/2 to 1/3, increasing the total compensation awarded.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue raised was no longer res integra and had been concluded by a Coordinate Bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and connected petitions. The Court also acknowledged that the petitioner's case was covered by the decision in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, a fact not disputed by the respondent. Consequently, the Court set aside the notice for reopening and all consequential orders, including the assessment orders. The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of this order to the Appellate Authority for the closure of the appeal case. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal decided that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. The reasoning is based on the assessee's reliance on Circular dated 15.03.2024, which stipulates a monetary limit for filing appeals. The tax effect in this case was Rs. 1,01,700/-, which, according to the assessee, renders the appeal non-maintainable. The revenue's counsel could not establish any exception to this circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the circular dated 15.03.2024. The question of law regarding the merits of the addition was left open. The appellant was granted liberty to move an application for revival if the cause of action still survives.
The High Court decided to dispose of the writ petitions in light of the judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed in the case of 'Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax' and other connected matters. Consequently, both the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the impugned notice dated 24.02.2021 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Court, however, granted liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar matter has been decided by a coordinate bench, the present matter should follow that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notices, with liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh.
The High Court found that the Tribunal had noted the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the additions of Rs. 16,10,000 from four creditors but had failed to consider them. It is a settled principle that a quasi-judicial authority must address all issues raised and pass a speaking order. The Court noted that the addition of Rs. 50,00,000 from M/s Johari Jewellers and M/s Trimurti Enterprises was upheld by the Tribunal because the creditors could not be produced for confirmation. However, it was undisputed that the loan receipt and repayment were through banking channels, and the creditors were income tax assessees. The Tribunal and appellate authority had noted that loan confirmations were filed with the income tax returns, but no findings were recorded regarding the evidentiary value of the produced documents. Since the Tribunal failed to decide the ground challenging the addition of Rs. 16,10,000 and did not deliberate on the evidence led to prove the loan transaction, the order of the Tribunal for AY 1994-95 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the withdrawal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that a statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order. The court noted that the petitioner had participated in the assessment proceedings after receiving notice under Section 153C on January 18, 2023, and only challenged the assessment order after it was passed. Regarding the opportunity of hearing, the court found that it was not a case of total absence of opportunity, but rather an allegation that a proper opportunity was not afforded, which could be examined by the appellate authority. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days, directing that the appeal be decided on its merits without being barred by limitation.
The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the petitioner had participated in the assessment proceedings after receiving notice under Section 153C on 10.02.2023, without challenging the initiation of those proceedings. The challenge was raised only after the assessment order was passed. The Court found that the issue regarding the opportunity of hearing could be examined by the appellate authorities, as it was not a case of total absence of hearing but rather an allegation of improper opportunity. Therefore, the Court held that a statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal exists to challenge the assessment order. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy. The Court further directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days, it shall be heard and decided on its merits without considering the issue of limitation.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.08.2010, shall not be given effect to. The court reasoned that the petition had been pending since 2011 and an interim order had stayed the notice since 23.12.2011. The court also stated that it would be open for the respondents (revenue) to take such proceedings as may be available under the law if they seek to reopen the matter. The principle established is that prolonged stays on assessment notices, coupled with the court's inclination to dispose of old matters, can lead to the quashing of such notices, while preserving the revenue's right to initiate fresh proceedings if permissible.
The High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the petitioner received notice under Section 153C on January 12, 2023, participated in the assessment proceedings, and only challenged the assessment order after it was passed. This conduct, where the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities and did not challenge the initiation of proceedings at the inception, was similar to the facts in the cited case of Smt. Rama Gupta. The Court found that a statutory alternative efficacious remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner to challenge the assessment order. The issue regarding the opportunity of hearing was also considered examinable by the appellate authorities, as it was not a case of total absence of hearing but rather an allegation of improper opportunity. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.
The High Court held that the requirement of natural justice under Section 148A(b) does not necessarily imply a personal hearing, and an opportunity to be heard via a show cause notice and reply suffices. The Court found that the petitioner's reply dated April 3, 2024, was indeed considered, as evidenced by the order dated April 5, 2024, which analyzed the petitioner's submissions regarding the power of attorney holder and the civil suit. The Court further held that an agent acting under a power of attorney binds the principal, and any act done by the agent is as effective as if done by the principal. The petitioner's claim of not being aware of the sales or that the power of attorney holder acted fraudulently does not absolve it of tax liability. The dispute between the petitioner and the power of attorney holder is a private law matter and not a ground to challenge the reassessment proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Genpact India Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. and Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, which reiterated the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained when an effective alternative remedy exists against an assessment order. The Court found no grounds to bypass the appellate mechanism provided by Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to pursue the appropriate appellate proceedings. The stay petition was also dismissed.
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the notice dated March 26, 2019, issued under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential orders, including any assessment orders. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning that the issue raised was no longer res integra and stood concluded by a common order of a Coordinate Bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In that precedent, it was held that if the basis for reopening assessment is material collected during a search of a third party, proceedings should be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148. The ratio decidendi is that Section 153C specifically deals with the assessment of income of any other person when seized material relates to them, and thus, it overrides the general provisions of Section 148 in such circumstances. The petitioner was directed to submit a copy of this order before the Appellate Authority for the closure of the appeal case.
The High Court held that the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal that had been filed. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying tax dispute. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they no longer wished to press the writ petition due to pursuing the statutory appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition can be withdrawn if the petitioner chooses to pursue an alternative statutory remedy, and liberty can be granted to pursue that remedy.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to raise all the issues involved in the petition before the Appellate Authority. Additionally, the petitioner was granted liberty to make a request for early disposal of the appeal before the concerned authority. No decision was made on the merits of the case, as the petition was withdrawn. The specific issues that would have been adjudicated in the writ petition were not decided.
The High Court allowed the writ petition in the same terms as its previous decision in M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (DBCWP No.1316/2024). The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by the aforementioned precedent. The operative direction was to allow the petition, thereby quashing the impugned intimation and assessment order as against the petitioner. However, a clarification was provided that the Department would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, implying that the revenue could initiate fresh proceedings if legally permissible. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without proper notice and against an incorrect entity, leading to a demand against the wrong party, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed, subject to the revenue's right to follow due process.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed, granting the petitioner the liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law. The court also granted the petitioner liberty to make a request to the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax for seeking expeditious disposal of the appeal. The court noted that in the event of such a request being made, it would be considered in accordance with law. The judgment does not decide any substantive issues related to income tax law, as the petition was withdrawn. No specific finding on any substantive issue was made, and no ratio decidendi for future cases on income tax matters can be derived. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as not pressed with liberty granted.
The High Court disposed of the petitions based on the statements made by both parties. The revenue's counsel acknowledged that the matter would now be considered in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (supra) and assured that the reasons would be supplied immediately. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to proceed in pursuance to the notice in accordance with the law. The specific finding on whether the reasons should have been supplied prior to the filing of returns, or the exact content of those reasons, was not explicitly detailed as the matter was resolved by the assurance of compliance and the subsequent procedural direction. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the petitions based on the statements made by both parties. The revenue's counsel acknowledged that the matter would now be considered in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts (supra) and assured that the reasons would be supplied immediately. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to proceed in pursuance to the notice in accordance with the law. The specific finding on whether the reasons should have been supplied prior to the filing of returns, or the exact content of those reasons, was not explicitly detailed as the matter was resolved by the assurance of compliance and the subsequent procedural direction. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the statements made by both parties. The Court noted the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-supply of reasons for the Section 148 notice and the respondents' subsequent submission that the reasons would be supplied immediately in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. The operative direction was for the respondents to proceed in pursuance to the notice under Section 148 in accordance with law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the reasons for issuing the notice or the validity of the reassessment proceedings themselves, as the matter was resolved by the undertaking to supply the reasons. The principle that can be cited is that tax authorities must comply with procedural requirements, including providing reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings, as per established judicial precedents.
The High Court noted that the petition had been pending since 2020 and that subsequent developments might have occurred. The Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the issue of the release of the seized goods expeditiously. The petitioners were granted liberty to file a fresh representation within two weeks if they so desired. The respondent was directed to decide the issue of release of the seized goods within ten weeks from the date of the order. The specific merits of the seizure or release were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
The tribunal held that the issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports. The appellant's counsel could not distinguish the present case from the Supreme Court's decision.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department leave to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner responded to the show cause notice on 28.03.2022, but this reply was not considered. The Court reasoned that even if there was a deficiency, such as the annexures not being uploaded, an opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to rectify it, or the reply filed should have been considered. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148-A(d) was set aside. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 2 to decide the objections afresh in accordance with the law. The interim protection granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the petition was directed to continue until a fresh order under Section 148-A(d) is passed.
The Tribunal held that the common question involved in the present income tax appeals was whether the appellant was entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme as well as the Duty Drawback Scheme. The Tribunal noted that the revenue relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Saraf Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III, which had decided the issue. The appellant's counsel was unable to distinguish the present appeals from the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 10.04.2023 in the case of M/s. Saraf Exports. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by the Supreme Court, the High Court would follow that precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, specifically mentioning the possibility of filing another writ petition if such a course of action is maintainable. The reasoning behind this decision is not elaborated upon, but the operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn with the granted liberty. No specific issues related to income tax assessment were decided on merits.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were not pressed by the petitioners. The court granted the petitioners liberty to raise all the issues that were raised in the writ petitions in the appeal that has been preferred against the re-assessment order. The court also noted that if a request is made to the Chief Commissioner Income-Tax for expeditious disposal of the appeal, it shall be considered in accordance with law. The appellate authority will attempt to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, considering the facts of the case. No specific finding was given on the merits of the issues that were to be raised in the appeal, as the petitions were disposed of as not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions as not pressed with liberty to pursue the appeal.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal. The Court noted that if the petitioner files an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, the same would be considered sympathetically in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to endeavor to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying tax dispute, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds.
The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of explaining the cash deposit. The explanation provided by the appellant was falsified by Kana Ram's denial that the cash belonged to him. Furthermore, no income tax returns of Kana Ram were produced to establish that the sale of immovable property was declared, and Kana Ram's creditworthiness was not proven. The initial explanation that the amount was to be returned to Kana Ram upon his opening a bank account was later changed to a claim that cash was transferred to various persons at Kana Ram's instance, which also remained unsubstantiated. The bank statements showed debit entries but did not indicate transfers at Kana Ram's instance. The reliance on *CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd.* was deemed misplaced as that case dealt with subscriptions from a public issue and the Revenue's failure to prove shareholders were benamidars or fictitious, unlike the present case where the source of cash deposited in the appellant's account was not explained. Consequently, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. The Court noted that if the petitioner files an appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, it would be considered sympathetically in accordance with the law. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to endeavor to decide the appeal expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case but facilitated the filing of an appeal and its timely disposal.
The Court disposed of the petition with the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. It was noted that if the petitioner files an appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, the same would be considered sympathetically in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to endeavor to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying tax dispute but rather on the procedural aspect of allowing the petitioner to pursue an appeal.
The High Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court noted that if the petitioner files an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, it would be considered sympathetically in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to endeavor to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying tax dispute, as the petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.
The High Court disposed of the petition with the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner. The court acknowledged that if the petitioner files an appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, it would be considered sympathetically in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to endeavor to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The court did not decide on the merits of any substantive tax dispute, as the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal.
The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The court accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petition had rendered the petition without a cause of action. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous. No decision was made on the merits of the original challenge, as the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds due to its rendered infructuous status.