Loading High Court cases…
10 orders from the Gauhati High Court.
Most recent orders on record, 2021–2026.
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing a review petition based solely on a liberty granted by the Supreme Court without considering the statutory limitations under CPC and the PBPT Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside.
The Tribunal held that a retracted statement, without corroborating evidence, cannot be considered incriminating material for making additions in a completed assessment. The High Court agreed that no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that excise duty exemption, when granted as an incentive for industrialization and employment generation in backward areas, is a capital receipt. Consequently, it cannot be taxed under normal provisions and should not be included in book profit for MAT computation.
The High Court held that the appeal did not involve a substantial question of law as the ITAT's decision was based on factual findings regarding the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the High Court could not interfere with the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that the appeals against the rectification applications were redundant. This was because the appeals against the original ITAT order had already been admitted by the court.
The High Court held that the appeals against the rectification applications were redundant. This was because the appeals against the original ITAT order had already been admitted by the court.
The High Court held that the ITAT's conclusion that the seized document GCL-HD-1 did not constitute incriminating material was a finding of fact. Therefore, it did not involve a substantial question of law, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the ledger entries and statements recorded during the search did not constitute incriminating material for making additions in an unabated assessment. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The High Court held that interest earned from short-term deposits of unutilized capital subsidy, debt, and equity funds during the formative years of a project is inextricably linked to the project cost and should be treated as a capital receipt, not taxable income.
The High Court, despite the petition being filed under an inappropriate section of the CrPC, directed the Customs Department to take over the investigation. The court found that the Customs Act vests the power to investigate such cases with the Customs authorities.