Loading High Court cases…
15 orders from the J&K High Court.
Most recent orders on record, 2023–2026.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the respondent for passing fresh orders. This was done in light of a CBDT circular accepting that disallowances under certain sections enhance profits, making Chapter VI-A deductions admissible on the enhanced profit.
The High Court held that declaring inflated stock figures to a bank for higher credit amounts to commercial immorality and cannot be countenanced in law. The Assessing Authority was justified in making the addition to taxable income based on the statement furnished to the bank.
The High Court found that the ITAT and CIT(A) orders were perverse as they did not properly consider the material on record, including RBI communications regarding CBDT instructions on Form 16. The issue of delay attributable to the assessee was not thoroughly examined.
The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, this court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court held that based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction.
The High Court held that, as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ABC Papers Ltd, appeals against ITAT decisions lie before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order is situated. Therefore, the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 69(1)(o) of the J&K VAT Act, 2005, was incorrect as the penalty provision under Section 4(3) of the J&K Entry Tax on Goods Act, 2000, was not applicable since the documents were not found to be fake or false. The High Court agreed that the questions of law sought for reference did not arise from the proceedings.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court had ruled that distributors are generally independent contractors and not agents, and therefore, Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to such transactions.
The High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by a Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court had ruled that distributors are generally independent contractors and not agents, and therefore, Section 194-H of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to such transactions.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a dissolved company, which has ceased to exist, is a nullity. Such an order cannot give rise to any right or liability under the Income Tax Act.
The High Court upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and ITAT, stating that the funds were either Government of India's money (exempt under Section 196) or JKSRRDA was a body wholly financed by the Government (exempt under Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) read with Notification No. 3489).
The Tribunal held that the Jammu Development Authority (JDA), being a corporation established under a State Act, was exempt from TDS deduction under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee-bank was not obligated to deduct TDS on interest payments made to JDA.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had not brought on record any material to prove the fees structure was in-genuine or that the Trust's activities were for non-charitable purposes. The Supreme Court's judgment in Queen's Educational Society was cited as covering the issue.