Loading High Court cases…
784 orders · Page 12 of 16
The High Court clarified that ITA 445/2016 needed to be heard on the second question regarding NPA interest recognition. ITA 443/2016 was disposed of based on a previous order concerning depreciation.
The High Court held that the Supreme Court's prior order made it impermissible for NTPC to contest the maintainability of writ petitions regarding pension. For employees who retired before February 3, 2003, their appeals were allowed, and their writ petitions were to be treated at par with a previous successful case.
The High Court held that the Supreme Court's prior order made it impermissible for NTPC to contest the maintainability of writ petitions regarding pension. For employees who retired before February 3, 2003, their appeals were allowed, and their writ petitions were to be treated at par with a previous successful case.
The High Court found the reasons provided for the delay insufficient to justify the extraordinary delay. The court was not convinced by the explanation offered by the Revenue.
The High Court held that a stay order on a decree does not wipe out the decree's existence, and the liability to pay interest accrued when the award was made a rule of the court. Therefore, NAFED was entitled to the deduction.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and a casual approach to a known legal requirement. The court declined to condone the delay.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and not in compliance with established legal requirements. The court declined to condone the delay, citing the casual manner in which the applications were filed.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and a casual approach to a known legal requirement. The court declined to condone the delay.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and a casual approach to a known legal requirement. The court declined to condone the delay.
The High Court found the ITAT's view on treating reimbursement as operating income to be plausible and not giving rise to a substantial question of law. The court also agreed with the ITAT and CIT(A) that the additions for various expenses were unjustified.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and a casual approach to a known legal requirement. The court declined to condone the delay.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and a casual approach to a known legal requirement. The court declined to condone the delay.
The High Court found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and a casual approach to a known legal requirement. The court declined to condone the delay.
The tribunal held that the driver of the Honda City was solely negligent as it was on the wrong side of the road, causing the collision. The tribunal also adjusted the compensation amounts for loss of future prospects, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses based on Supreme Court judgments.
The Delhi High Court found the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay to be unconvincing and insufficient to condone the significant delay. The court emphasized the department's responsibility to follow up on appeals.
The tribunal held that the defendant was a licensee whose license was validly revoked. The defendant's claims of ownership and adverse possession were unsubstantiated by evidence. The court upheld the lower court's decree for possession and mesne profits.
The High Court held that the issues raised by the Revenue in these appeals were already answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by this court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nikki Drugs and Chemicals P. Ltd., (2016) 386 ITR 680 (Del). The reasoning was that the present appeals did not present any new grounds or arguments that were not considered in the cited precedent. Therefore, the principle established in Nikki Drugs and Chemicals P. Ltd. was directly applicable. The court dismissed the appeals and all pending applications, granting relief to the Assessee by upholding the prior decision.
The High Court dismissed the government's appeals, holding them responsible for the deaths due to negligence. It also enhanced the compensation for the claimants based on a specific formula for pecuniary and standard compensation.
The High Court held that the issues raised by the Revenue in these appeals were already answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the Court's own decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nikki Drugs and Chemicals P. Ltd., (2016) 386 ITR 680 (Del). The reasoning is that the present appeals involve identical issues that have been authoritatively decided by the same court. Therefore, the principle of stare decisis mandates that the present appeals should follow the earlier ruling. The court found no reason to deviate from its previous judgment. Consequently, the appeals and pending applications were dismissed.
The High Court found that the tenants had raised triable issues regarding the availability of suitable alternative accommodation for the landlady's husband. Therefore, the dismissal of leave to contest applications and the consequent eviction orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that a search alone does not compel an assessee to obtain a fresh valuation report if the existing valuation is still within its cycle. The assessees were within their rights to rely on the prevailing valuation.
The High Court held that the ITAT was right in concluding that the restriction of the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income. The Court noted that the total exempt income was Rs. 25,38,020. After accounting for the Rs. 7.36 lakhs disallowance voluntarily offered by the assessee, the ITAT restricted the disallowance to Rs. 18,01,968. This restriction was made following the High Court's decision in CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 90 CCH 08I-DEL-HC. The Court found that the decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharti Oversees Pvt. Ltd. would not apply to the facts of the present case, as the assessee's sole business is investments. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the addition of amounts on a protective basis for certain properties could not be upheld due to insufficient seized material. For another assessee, the addition based on sketchy and insufficient material, and an arbitrary valuation, was also set aside.
The tribunal held that the cash transaction was unaccounted and thus not legally enforceable. The court cannot aid in illegal transactions, and the loss must lie where it falls.
The High Court held that the addition of amounts on a protective basis for certain properties could not be upheld due to insufficient seized material. For another assessee, the addition based on sketchy and insufficient material, and an arbitrary valuation, was also set aside.
The High Court held that the addition of amounts on a protective basis for certain properties could not be upheld due to insufficient seized material. For another assessee, the addition based on sketchy and insufficient material, and an arbitrary valuation, was also set aside.
The High Court held that the addition of amounts on a protective basis for certain properties could not be upheld due to insufficient seized material. For another assessee, the addition based on sketchy and insufficient material, and an arbitrary valuation, was also set aside.
The High Court held that the additions made on a protective basis in the case of Vijaya Rajagopal could not be upheld due to insufficient material. Similarly, additions in ITA 478/2007 were partly allowed as the basis for re-valuation was not supported by seized documents.
The High Court held that the substituted plaintiff successfully proved the registered Will, which was not forged or fabricated. Probate was not mandatory in Delhi, and the attesting witness proved the Will beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the substituted plaintiff was entitled to continue the suit.
The High Court held that the Supreme Court's prior order made it impermissible for NTPC to contest the maintainability of writ petitions regarding pension. For employees who retired before February 3, 2003, their appeals were allowed, and their writ petitions were to be treated at par with a previous successful case.
The High Court held that the addition of amounts on a protective basis for certain properties could not be upheld due to insufficient seized material. For another assessee, the addition based on sketchy and insufficient material, and an arbitrary valuation, was also set aside.
The tribunal held that the petitioner had no vested right to a mining lease under the old regime and was bound by statutory provisions, including the cut-off date. Delay on the part of respondents did not entitle the petitioner to relief in the absence of any rights in its favour.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue's contention that the advertisement expenses were of a capital nature had already been rejected by the High Court in a previous decision dated September 19, 2014, in ITA No. 597 of 2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10. Since the Court was not persuaded to take a different view on this recurring issue, it dismissed the present appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, thereby upholding the ITAT's deletion of the additions made on account of advertisement expenses.
The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the appellant's case was identical to previous appeals that had already been dismissed. The court was not prima facie satisfied with the genuineness of the agreements.
The High Court held that the Supreme Court's prior order made it impermissible for NTPC to contest the maintainability of writ petitions regarding pension. For employees who retired before February 3, 2003, their appeals were allowed, and their writ petitions were to be treated at par with a previous successful case.
The High Court held that the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) is not a completely isolated code and that undefined terms and expressions are to be interpreted in terms of the Income Tax Act. The Court found no explicit bar in the scheme preventing the reckoning of previously paid amounts, such as advance tax and TDS, for the purpose of calculating the tax payable under the IDS. The Court noted that the scheme's provisions, particularly Section 189, only barred reopening assessments or claiming set-off or relief in appeals. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelly (supra), the Court stated that advance tax is a mode of tax recovery that an assessee is bound to pay. The Court also considered the Revenue's own clarification that TDS credit would be given under the scheme, which weakened the argument against allowing credit for advance tax. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to process the petitioner's application under the IDS, giving credit for the amounts paid as advance tax and TDS, and to accept the balance amounts payable. The writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the AO could not have revisited the entire issue of stay of demand as if it were a fresh remand. The previous order of the High Court dated March 1, 2017, had directed the AO to exercise discretion and consider further relief, not to reopen the matter entirely. The Court referred to Nainsingh v Koonwarjee (AIR 1997 SC 997) to emphasize that the scope of a remand order limits the jurisdiction of the lower authority. The AO's order dated March 14, 2017, to the extent it reviewed the previous order of February 22, 2017, and denied the stay of demand beyond the 15% deposit, was set aside. However, the relief granted by the AO in terms of adjusting the refund amount of ₹27,93,09,100/- was upheld, as this was within the scope of the remand. The assessee was directed to deposit the balance amount of ₹34,78,86,820/- (₹62,71,95,920/- minus ₹27,93,09,100/-) within two weeks. The Court found that the AO could not have revisited the previous order granting a stay subject to a 15% deposit, as that order was not set aside by the High Court.
The Tribunal allowed the petition for voluntary winding up. The company is deemed to be dissolved from the date of filing the petition.
The ITAT found that the assessment order was made without any reference to incriminating documents or material seized during the search. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not based on any seized material.
The Tribunal found that the company had complied with all the necessary provisions of the Companies Act for voluntary winding up. The affairs of the company were not conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of its members or the public.
The High Court held that the Supreme Court's prior order made it impermissible for NTPC to contest the maintainability of writ petitions regarding pension. For employees who retired before February 3, 2003, their appeals were allowed, and their writ petitions were to be treated at par with a previous successful case.
The High Court held that the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay of 1245 days were insufficient to constitute a sufficient cause for condonation. The court found the explanation regarding the re-organization of counsel and the pendency of defective appeals to be unsatisfactory. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself were dismissed. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal as it was dismissed on procedural grounds. No specific ratio decidendi for future cases was established beyond the standard for condoning delays in filing appeals.
The High Court held that the lower court's dismissal of the application for judgment on admissions was faulty. It found that the respondents' written statement contained admissions that entitled the petitioner to a decree for recovery of possession.
The tribunal held that electrical installations forming an integral part of the assessee's manufacturing plant are eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. The High Court affirmed this view, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the ITAT's order. The Court reasoned that the Revenue was not prejudiced because the ITAT's order allowed the Revenue to argue all its submissions, and no arguments were being foreclosed. The ITAT's decision to doubt the six comparables and remit the matter for reconsideration by the TPO was therefore not considered a substantial question of law warranting interference by the High Court. The appeals were dismissed on this basis. No specific issue was left undecided.
The ITAT held that the reassessment was based on a reappraisal of existing material and lacked tangible material, making the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 arbitrary. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of a legally recoverable debt. The Metropolitan Magistrate's acquittal of the respondent was based on a plausible view of the evidence and was not perverse.
The High Court set aside the lower court's order and directed that the first respondent be given an opportunity to show cause against attachment. The court also ordered a portion of the deposited amount to be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit pending a decision on the attachment application.
The High Court found that the reasons provided for the delay in re-filing the appeals were not sufficient. The court was of the opinion that the appeals could have been filed earlier, and the loss of electronic records due to office shifting does not constitute a valid cause.