Telangana High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on CBDT circulars enhancing monetary limits for litigation.

The High Court held that prior period adjustments are not to be excluded when working out book profit under Section 115J of the Act. The Assessing Officer cannot go beyond the net profit shown in the profit and loss account except as provided in the Explanation to Section 115J.

The Tribunal upheld the finding of the accident, dismissing the owner's appeal. However, it modified the compensation calculation due to an error in determining the multiplicand.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as it was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals. The Department was given liberty to seek revival if the appeal fell under an exception.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was based on the fact that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was in accordance with the CBDT circular which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in terms of the CBDT Circular enhancing monetary limits for filing appeals, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. This was done in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, which enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals set by CBDT circulars, as the penalty amount was below the prescribed threshold.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular enhancing the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts to Rs. 1.00 crore, as the tax effect was below this limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's stand was contradictory, as he claimed a genuine belief of a lower turnover while his entertainment tax return indicated a much higher figure. The Tribunal also noted that the income tax return was not filed voluntarily but in response to a notice.

The High Court held that the ITAT's findings were based on facts and not perverse. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order, particularly regarding the clandestine nature of the transactions and the unexplained investments.

The High Court held that the interest earned on the deposited amount is taxable income. This decision followed previous judgments by the same court on similar matters.

The High Court held that the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated May 4, 2022, had modified the orders of various High Courts that had quashed notices issued under the unamended Section 148 after April 1, 2021. The Supreme Court directed that such notices shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act and treated as show-cause notices. The assessing officers were directed to provide the information and material relied upon to the assessees, who would then have two weeks to reply. The requirement of prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and thereafter, if satisfied, issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessee and revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law were kept open. The Supreme Court clarified that its order, passed under Article 142 of the Constitution, was applicable pan-India and would govern all pending writ petitions challenging similar notices.

The High Court, in a common order, noted that the learned counsel for both parties were in agreement that the writ petitions had become infructuous. This agreement was based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC OnLine SC 543). Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions as infructuous. No specific finding was given on the merits of the challenge to the reassessment notices. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were also closed, with no order as to costs.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the primary issue was the petitioner's statutory duty as an assessee to file a return of income, which she admittedly failed to do for Assessment Year 2017-18. This failure compelled the Assessing Officer to resort to a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act. The Court also noted that an order of assessment is an appealable order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the Court found no good ground to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), stating that any such appeal would be considered in accordance with law. The Court explicitly mentioned that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions were kept open. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Court noted that the issue raised in these writ petitions was squarely covered by a previous decision of the same Court rendered on September 13, 2022, in W.P. No. 33191 of 2022 and batch (M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited v. The Adjudicating Authority), which were also allowed. Consequently, following that precedent, the present writ petitions were allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed. No order as to costs was made. The specific reasoning from the cited precedent is not detailed in this excerpt, but the operative direction is to allow the petitions based on the prior ruling.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Court noted that the issue raised in these writ petitions was squarely covered by a previous decision of the same Court rendered on September 13, 2022, in W.P. No. 33191 of 2022 and batch (M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited v. The Adjudicating Authority), which had also been allowed. Consequently, following that precedent, the present writ petitions were allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were to stand closed. No order as to costs was made.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This decision was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The Tribunal held that once an assessment is reopened, the Assessing Officer can assess or reassess any other income that has escaped assessment. The High Court affirmed that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are for the benefit of the revenue and cannot be used by the assessee for review or revision.

The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings were void as the Assessing Officer acted on the dictates of higher authorities without independent application of mind. The Court also noted that the limitation period for framing the reassessment order had lapsed.

The High Court held that interest accrued on share application money deposited due to statutory requirements is incidental and not taxable. Such interest is eligible for deduction against public issue expenses.

The Tribunal held that additional charges and interest for delayed electricity payment are statutory liabilities and deductible, as Section 43B does not specifically exclude electricity charges. The Court also affirmed that an assessee can claim a deduction even if not initially recorded or claimed in the return.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. This decision was based on the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department. This dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The High Court found the Tribunal's approach inconsistent with law and procedure, bordering on absurdity. The Tribunal's act of quantifying the income on its own, after setting aside the additions, was considered beyond its jurisdiction.

The High Court held that income derived from funds placed with the State Bank or Reserve Bank of India, which is imperative for carrying on banking business, arises from the business itself. Therefore, such income is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The High Court held that an unregistered agreement cannot supersede a registered sale deed. It also clarified that an adverse inference cannot be drawn against a party for not appearing in the witness box if their General Power of Attorney, who is acquainted with the facts, has testified.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department. This dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019.

The High Court held that income derived from funds placed with the State Bank or Reserve Bank of India, which is imperative for carrying on banking business, arises from the business itself. Therefore, such income is eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that interest paid on capital borrowed for business purposes is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, even if incurred during the pre-production period for expansion. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

The High Court partly allowed the claimants' appeal, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 8,45,000/- with 9% interest. The insurance company's appeal was dismissed.

The appellant-Income Tax Department sought to withdraw the present appeals. In view of the settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The appellant (Income Tax Department) sought to withdraw the appeals. The Court allowed the withdrawal based on a settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The appellant-Income Tax Department sought to withdraw the present appeals. In view of the settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The appellant-Income Tax Department sought to withdraw the present appeals. In view of the settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court enhanced the compensation amount, finding the Tribunal's assessment of income to be less than appropriate. It recalculated the loss of dependency and added amounts for future prospects, filial consortium, and conventional heads.

The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the rectification application. A subsequent Supreme Court decision, which clarifies the law, can form the basis for rectifying an earlier order under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal correctly held that the non-competing fee was part of the sale consideration for shares, but capital gains tax could only be levied on shares not under lock-in or pledge. The matter was remanded for re-computation.

The High Court noted that the tax amount due has been paid by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal has become infructuous.

The High Court held that it was unable to accept the petitioner's contentions. Upon reviewing the order dated 30.07.2022, the court found that the petitioner's reply dated 02.06.2022 was indeed considered by the Assessing Officer, but it was not accepted. The Assessing Officer's order detailed that the cash deposits of Rs. 304.05 crores appeared to be unexplained credits, and there was reason to believe that income had escaped assessment under Section 147 of the Act. The court emphasized that the present stage was for the issuance of a notice under Section 148, following an order under Section 148A(d) which determines whether such a notice should be issued. Interference at this threshold is to be avoided unless there is a gross or manifest error. The court also noted that the petitioner would have remedies available, including filing a reply to the show cause notice, contesting the reassessment proceedings, and filing appeals if an adverse order was passed. Consequently, the court was not inclined to interdict the reassessment proceedings at this stage.