Loading High Court cases…
296 orders · Page 5 of 6
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the appeal as not pressed. This decision was based on the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court. Since the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 54,33,958/-, which is below the stipulated limit, the Department chose not to press the appeal. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court dismissed the present appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3. The Court noted that the respondent had sought early hearing based on the Supreme Court's decision dated July 25, 2019, in Civil Appeal No 5409 of 2019 titled Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited. In that decision, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue and affirmed the decision of the High Court. Consequently, following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the High Court found the present appeal to be covered and accordingly dismissed it. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire appeal was disposed of based on the precedent.
The High Court dismissed the present appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3. The Court's decision was based on the Supreme Court's judgment dated July 25, 2019, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited. In that case, the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the High Court's decision. The High Court, following this precedent set by the Supreme Court, found no reason to proceed with the present appeal and consequently dismissed it. No specific issues were decided on merits in this judgment, as it was disposed of based on a binding Supreme Court decision.
The High Court dismissed the present appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court's decision was based on the Supreme Court's judgment dated July 25, 2019, in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited. The Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's appeal in that matter, thereby affirming the High Court's decision. The High Court found this Supreme Court ruling to be squarely applicable to the present appeal. Consequently, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the High Court found no merit in continuing with the present appeal and dismissed it. No specific issues were decided on merits in this order; the dismissal was purely on the basis of the binding Supreme Court precedent.
The High Court held that the disputes arising from the MOU containing an arbitration clause should be referred to arbitration. It appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
The High Court held that the trial court's reasoning was sound and based on a proper appreciation of law and facts. The court found that the respondent had successfully rebutted the presumption of consideration by demonstrating the petitioner's lack of financial capacity to advance the loan.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's order was incompetent as it was passed in the name of a non-existent entity after amalgamation. The court relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding the cessation of existence of amalgamating companies.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's order was incompetent as it was passed in the name of a non-existent entity after amalgamation. The court relied on a Supreme Court judgment stating that jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the name of an amalgamating entity that has ceased to exist.
The High Court determined that the market value of the acquired land should be Rs. 2,07,500 per Bigha. This enhanced compensation was to be applied uniformly to all similarly acquired land in the four villages mentioned, including those who had not initially applied for enhanced compensation.
The High Court held that there were consistent findings of fact by the lower authorities that the share transaction was bogus. The court found no question of law arising and upheld the concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence.
The High Court determined that the market value of the acquired land should be Rs. 2,07,500 per Bigha. This enhanced compensation was to be applied uniformly to all similarly acquired land in the four villages mentioned, including those who had not initially applied for enhanced compensation.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular fixed the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. As the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 50,38,907/-, which is below the stipulated limit, the Department indicated it would not press the appeal. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground related to the monetary limit.
The High Court decided to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. This decision was based on a circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixed the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Since the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 4,15,425/-, which is significantly below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue. The court did not decide on the merits of the original dispute.
The High Court of Delhi, in light of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), Government of India, which fixes the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and considering that the tax effect in the present case is Rs. 95,12,775/-, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning is solely based on the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT circular. The principle is that appeals falling below the prescribed monetary threshold are not to be pursued by the Revenue. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court of Delhi, in light of the Circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), Government of India, which sets the monetary limit for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and considering that the tax effect in the present case is Rs. 88,95,586/-, disposed of the present appeal as not pressed. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal. The ratio is that appeals with a tax effect below the stipulated monetary limit in the relevant CBDT circular are to be considered as not pressed by the Revenue.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court observed that the ITAT's decision for the assessment year 2014-15 was predicated on this Court's prior judgment in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10, reported at (2016) 381 ITR 227. Furthermore, the Tribunal had also considered its own decision for assessment year 2012-13. Since the issues raised by the Revenue in the present appeal had already been authoritatively decided by the High Court in respect of earlier assessment years concerning the same assessee, the Court found no reason to entertain the present appeal. The principle applied is that of consistency and adherence to judicial precedent, particularly when the facts and issues are identical or substantially similar. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was dismissed on the ground of being non-entertainable due to prior binding decisions.
The High Court enhanced the wife's monthly maintenance from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 35,000 per month from January 2020 onwards, upholding the original amount for the period prior to that. The husband's petition was dismissed.
The High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the present appeal. This decision was based on the fact that the issue in dispute was squarely covered by the High Court's own earlier order in ITA No. 674/2016, dated 05.09.2016, which was also in the case of the respondent assessee. The Court found no reason to deviate from its previous pronouncement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific findings on the merits of the assessment year 2011-12 were made, as the appeal was disposed of on the ground of being covered by precedent.
The High Court held that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. This decision is based on the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court. Since the tax effect in the present case is Rs. 67,28,192/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal is not pressed by the Department. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the stipulated monetary limit are not to be pursued by the Revenue. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed.
The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision to allow the CD to be taken on record, subject to forensic examination. The court acknowledged the wife's privacy concerns but emphasized the Family Court's broad powers under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act to admit evidence that assists in resolving disputes.
The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, finding that the appellant had concealed his actual income and that the maintenance awarded was justified considering his expenditure, assets like a luxury car, and travel. The court noted that the maintenance was for the wife and minor daughter, including educational expenses.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Court noted the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulated a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the Department to pursue matters before the High Court. In view of the fact that the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 30,07,899/-, which was below the stipulated limit, the Court found no reason to proceed with the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, as per departmental circulars, are to be considered as not pressed and disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.
The High Court, in light of the Circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetary limit for departmental appeals before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and considering that the tax effect in the present case is Rs. 16,83,000/-, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning is solely based on the revised monetary limit stipulated in the circular. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. No specific issue was decided on its substance; the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
The tribunal held that the accused had discharged his burden by showing the cheques were given as security for a committee. The complainant failed to prove the cheques were issued against an admitted liability and was engaged in money lending without a license.
The High Court of Delhi, in light of the circular dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judicial Section), which sets the monetary limit for appeals before the High Court at Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and considering that the tax effect in the present case is Rs. 29,97,300/-, disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The court did not decide the substantive issues of the appeal on their merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, as per CBDT circulars, are to be considered not pressed or withdrawn by the department.
The High Court held that the Single Judge erred in rejecting the plaint at a nascent stage without properly considering the averments in the amended plaint and filed documents. The court found that the amended plaint disclosed sufficient cause of action.
The Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of a loan transaction. The respondent successfully rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act by providing an alternative explanation for the cheque's issuance.