Loading High Court cases…
814 orders · Page 13 of 17
The High Court granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh application under Section 31 of the Provisional Insolvency Act within two weeks. The lower court is directed to dispose of this application within two months of the respondent filing objections.
The High Court held that the DRT's decision on merits was without jurisdiction as it had already determined it lacked territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the High Court quashed the DRT's decision on merits.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned standing counsel for the respondent-Income Tax Department. The counsel stated that the petitioner possesses an alternate and efficacious remedy by filing an appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to challenge the assessment order. Given the availability of this statutory remedy, the Court found that nothing further survived for consideration in the writ petition. Therefore, the petition was disposed of on the grounds of alternative remedy. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the demand notice.
The High Court acknowledged the joint submission of both parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without further elaboration on the merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the submission that identical questions of law were involved in a previous appeal (ITA No.744/2008) which was also dismissed. Therefore, no substantial question of law remained to be answered.
The High Court held that since the recipient, Sheraton International Inc., was already held by the Delhi High Court to not be liable for tax in India on such income (as business income not taxable due to no permanent establishment), the payer (ITC Hotels) was not liable to deduct tax at source. The foundation for initiating proceedings against the payer disappeared with the Delhi High Court's decision.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is intra vires the Constitution. The court found no merit in the arguments that the section was arbitrary or discriminatory.
The High Court held that the surrender of FAR by the assessee to L&T constituted a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, making it liable for capital gains tax. The Tribunal's decision to the contrary was set aside.
The High Court disposed of the appeals, stating that the impugned orders declaring the provisions ultra vires would be subject to the outcome of the Apex Court's decision. Parties are bound by the Apex Court's order, and all contentions on merits are kept open.
The High Court held that the classification of interest income from fixed deposits as business income or income from other sources is a debatable issue. Such debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.
The tribunal affirmed the finding of negligence on the part of the lorry driver. The court enhanced the compensation amount by recalculating the deceased's income, adding future prospects, and adjusting for dependents and personal expenses, also awarding amounts for loss of consortium, estate, and funeral expenses.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. This was due to a retrospective amendment to Section 115JA of the Act, which necessitated a fresh consideration of the issues.
The High Court held that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to produce the statutory forms. The denial of benefit on technical grounds and the dismissal of appeals on limitation were not justified.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. This was due to a retrospective amendment to Section 115JA of the Act, which necessitated a fresh consideration of the issues.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the net tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in Instruction No. 5/2008.
The Tribunal held that since the sale consideration was paid before the effective date of Section 194-IA, the petitioner was not obligated to deduct TDS at the time of registration. The endorsement demanding TDS was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the sale of the three machines to group companies for consideration in FY 1994-95 constituted commercial production. Therefore, the initial assessment year for claiming deduction under Section 80IB was 1995-96, not 1996-97.
The High Court held that the appellate authorities were not correct in holding that the order giving effect to Section 263 directions was unsustainable. The substantial question of law was answered against the revenue.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was unsustainable as it did not judiciously apply its mind to the facts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the ITAT for fresh disposal.
The High Court held that the Revenue's contention was not valid as they had treated the services conjointly as professional and technical from the beginning. Furthermore, the Tribunal had already made a finding of fact that the services were neither professional nor technical.
The High Court observed that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the petition due to repeated non-compliance. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
The High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation, finding that competent authorities had raised no objections after satisfactory replies from the petitioner companies. The court noted that no interested parties had raised objections despite publication.
The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Virupapura Gaddi is an archaeologically significant area with no development permitted according to the Master Plan 2021. The court found no merit in the petitioners' submissions for permission to construct or operate businesses.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot sit in judgment over the certificate issued by the prescribed authority regarding scientific research expenditure. The AO's role is limited, and any disputes regarding the certificate should be referred to the CBDT for resolution by the prescribed authority.
The High Court held that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the writ petition filed without availing this remedy is not maintainable.
The tribunal held that the appellant, having accepted the compensation amount without protest and encashed the cheque, is estopped from later challenging the award. The consent award was made under a package scheme.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following a previous decision by a coordinate bench. The dismissal was based on monetary limits fixed by a circular, which was held to be applicable to pending proceedings.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Circular regarding monetary limits for appeals was applicable to pending proceedings. This was based on previous High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The High Court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, stating that the Commissioner's Circular was binding on the department and intended to ease the transition to the KVAT regime. The assessment order was quashed for failing to consider the circular.
The Tribunal's interpretation that the return contemplated under Section 240(b) includes both valid and invalid returns was set aside. The High Court held that tax paid on an invalid return must be refunded to the assessee, along with interest.