Loading High Court cases…
976 orders · Page 2 of 20
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals. The detailed reasoning for the dismissal can be found in a related judgment.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The High Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the GE entities. No costs were awarded in these proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the provision for gratuity and leave encashment was covered by earlier High Court decisions against the Revenue. Similarly, the disallowance of sales promotion expenses treated as capital was also covered by precedent.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the provision for gratuity and leave encashment was covered by earlier High Court decisions against the Revenue. Similarly, the disallowance of sales promotion expenses treated as capital was also covered by precedent.
The Tribunal erred in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable. The High Court found that the assessee acted bona fide, as the expenses were otherwise eligible and allowed in subsequent assessment years, and the tax effect was minimal. Full and true disclosure was made in audited accounts.
The Tribunal erred in holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was leviable. The High Court found that the assessee acted bona fide, as the expenses were otherwise eligible and allowed in subsequent assessment years, and the tax effect was minimal. Full and true disclosure was made in audited accounts.
The High Court found that the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal on both the royalty issue and the disallowance of expenditure were primarily factual. The Revenue had not presented any substantial question of law arising from these factual findings.
The Tribunal held that the conditions for exemption under Section 54B were not met. The evidence regarding agricultural use, particularly the tenant's statement, was found to be unreliable and contradictory.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's (Appeals) decision, stating that Rule 8D cannot be applied mechanically without the AO recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's disallowance. The AO's failure to do so rendered the disallowance invalid.
The High Court held that the issue raised by the Revenue in the present appeal was covered by its earlier decision in ITA No. 409-410/2018, decided on April 9, 2018. Consequently, the Court found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the principle of precedent, where a matter already decided by a higher court (or the same court in a prior instance) does not warrant re-adjudication if the facts and legal issues are identical or substantially similar. The ratio decidendi is that appeals raising issues already authoritatively decided by the same court, without any distinguishing features, are liable to be dismissed summarily. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Delhi High Court directed the ESIC to reassess the petitioner's ESI contribution demand after the petitioner provides the recovered and reconstructed records. Pending reassessment, the attachment of the petitioner's bank account for the demand amount was ordered to be detached.
The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order of the ITAT. The Court found that an identical substantial question of law had been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the assessee's own appeal for AY 1995-96, vide order dated 20th November 2015 in ITA 467/2003. Therefore, following its previous decision, the High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that the interpretation of 'total turnover' under Section 80HHC, as decided in the previous case, applies to the present appeals. The operative direction was to set aside the ITAT's order and allow the appeals.
The High Court held that the Family Court did not adequately consider the impact of voluntary and non-mandatory deductions on the respondent's net salary when fixing maintenance. The court noted that only statutory and compulsory deductions should be considered for determining the husband's capacity to pay.
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back. The Tribunal is to decide both the validity of the reopening of assessment and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal erred by focusing solely on the percentage increase in payments and ignoring objective factors like the directors' qualifications, experience, and prior salaries. The High Court held that the disallowance was not justified as the payments were reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered.
The High Court disposed of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised. The Court took the Revenue's statement on record that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs and that the appeal could be disposed of in terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018. The issue/question of law was expressly left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if it is found that the matter is covered by an exception. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal without deciding the merits.
The High Court held that the payment was for services rendered outside India that benefited the assessee's business by increasing investment and advisory fees. The disallowance was unjustified as the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This is because the issue raised in the present appeal is covered against the appellant-Revenue by a previous decision of the same Court for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No. 672/2015, Commissioner of Income Tax versus Praxis Institute of Participatory Practices. The Court found that the present appeal, arising from the ITAT's order dated June 5, 2018, for Assessment Year 2010-11, is on an identical issue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. This decision is based on the precedent set by this Court in the case of DIT versus KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, reported in (2017) 392 ITR 2018. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter has been decided by the High Court in a previous case involving the same assessee and concerning similar issues, a subsequent appeal on the same grounds will be dismissed for want of a substantial question of law. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court disposed of the present appeal without examining the question/issue raised. The court took on record the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant/revenue that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in terms of Circular No. 3 of 2018. The issue/question of law was expressly left open, and liberty was granted to the Revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case it is found that the matter is covered by an exception. No finding was given on the merits of the case.
The Tribunal found a direct nexus between interest paid and interest received on ICDs, allowing the deduction. The High Court agreed, finding sufficient material to support the commencement of business and the deductibility of interest paid to earn interest.
The Tribunal and CIT(A) correctly held that the IMFL and BIIS segments were distinct and could not be clubbed. The TPO's reliance on third-party evidence without specific material for the assessee's case was unjustified.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that Rule 8D cannot be invoked without the Assessing Officer recording his dissatisfaction with the assessee's disallowance and examining the assessee's justification. The Supreme Court decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. was relied upon.
The High Court held that the issue regarding the chargeability of interest under Section 234B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, in the case of a non-resident is covered against the Revenue by previous decisions of the same court. Specifically, the court referred to its own rulings in Director of Income-Tax Vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated [2011] 330 ITR 578 (Delhi) and Director of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Vs. GE Packaged Power Inc. [2015] 373 ITR 65 (Delhi). Based on these precedents, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
The High Court found that the ITAT's confirmation of the CIT(A)'s factual finding regarding the admission of evidence was sound and did not raise a substantial question of law. The second issue was not considered as it was not raised before the Tribunal.
The High Court did not issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. Consequently, the applications and the appeal were treated as dismissed. The reasoning for not issuing notice was based on the acceptance by the Revenue's counsel that the additions made were revenue neutral, as Rs. 16.82 crores were offered and taxed in the assessment year 2006-07. Furthermore, the assessee had returned a loss for the assessment year in question (2005-06), and the assessment order was framed at a loss despite the additions. The Tribunal's observation that the right to receive had not accrued due to a pending appeal by NTPC before the High Court of Delhi against the Central Electricity Regulatory Council's decision, and that payment was neither received nor paid, also contributed to the decision to dismiss the appeal without a detailed hearing on merits.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of a previous order, acknowledging that the Supreme Court's decision on a similar matter would apply. The court clarified that this order would not affect other appeals filed by the assessee.
The High Court disposed of the appeal, stating that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the pending case would also apply to the present appeal. Parties can file an application after the Supreme Court's decision if any difficulty arises.
The High Court decided to frame a substantial question of law regarding the ITAT's bifurcation of income into 'income from business' and 'income from house property'. It also noted the assessee was not claiming depreciation on buildings but on plant and equipment for common area maintenance.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) and its own prior decision in ITA No. 725/2018, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi versus McDonald’s India Private Limited, decided on 22nd October, 2018, which dealt with the issue of disallowance under Section 14A. The Court was not inclined to admit the appeal, noting that doing so might be disadvantageous to the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it did not raise a substantial question of law. No specific finding was made on the merits of the disallowance itself, as the appeal was not admitted.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of a previous order, acknowledging that the Supreme Court's decision on a similar matter would govern this case. The court clarified that this order would not affect other appeals filed by the assessee.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of a previous order, acknowledging that the issue of interest under Section 234B was covered against the Revenue by a prior judgment. The ruling of the Supreme Court in a related matter was expected to apply.
The Court held that passing off actions based on the use of registered designs are not permissible in law, following precedents like Mohan Lal and Carlsberg Breweries. Consequently, the suits were found to be not maintainable.
The Tribunal erred in not relying on the deceased's Income Tax Return, which was filed prior to the accident. The compensation was re-determined based on the Income Tax Return and established legal precedents for conventional heads.