Loading High Court cases…
814 orders · Page 4 of 17
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue) that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. Consequently, the High Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made by the High Court on the merits of the case, as the appeal was not pressed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that he does not press the appeal in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The submission was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the Tribunal or the Income Tax Officer are not discussed as the appeal was withdrawn at the High Court stage.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, accepted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue). The court noted that the counsel did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific reasoning behind the circular's applicability or the merits of the original ITAT order were not discussed or decided by the High Court, as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT, or the substantive issues that led to the original appeal before the Tribunal, were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and no substantial questions of law were formulated or decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.
The tribunal held that Co-operative Banks were not required to deduct tax at source on time deposits paid or credited to their members before June 1, 2015. This was based on a clarification from the Ministry of Finance.
The Tribunal held that Co-operative Banks were not required to deduct tax at source on time deposits paid or credited before June 1, 2015. This was based on a clarification from the Ministry of Finance.
The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the appeal. The learned counsel for the Appellants (Revenue) submitted that he did not press the appeal, citing Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The High Court placed the submission of the learned counsel on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific reasoning behind the Revenue's decision not to press the appeal, or the contents of the cited circular, are not elaborated upon in the judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellants that the appeal is not pressed in view of Circular No.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Placing the submission on record, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT or the Income Tax Officer, nor the reasoning behind the circular, are detailed in this judgment.
The Tribunal noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue). The counsel stated that the appeal was not being pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The submission of the counsel was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not record any findings on the merits of the case or the specific issues that were before the ITAT.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue) that he does not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel was placed on record. The High Court held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the merits of the case, which led to the Revenue's appeal, are not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal was not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and no substantial questions of law were formulated or decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with no costs.
The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) submitted that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No.21/2015 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt), dated 10.12.2015. The submission of the learned counsel was placed on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The principle that can be cited is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the appellant if they choose not to press it, especially in light of subsequent departmental instructions or circulars.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appeal was not being pressed due to Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The submission was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific content of Circular No. 21/2015 and its relevance to the original dispute before the ITAT are not detailed in this judgment. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the case.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the appeal is not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed the submission on record and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific contents of Circular No. 21/2015 and the reasons for not pressing the appeal are not detailed in the judgment. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the original ITAT order.
The Tribunal's finding that co-operative banks were not required to deduct tax at source on interest payments before June 1, 2015, was upheld. The court also referred to a previous judgment regarding accrued interest on NPAs.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the appeal was not pressed in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated December 10, 2015. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific findings or reasoning of the ITAT or the Joint Commissioner were not discussed or decided by the High Court as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, placed on record the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (Revenue). The court noted that the appellant's counsel submitted that they do not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The specific grounds of the original appeal before the ITAT and the reasoning of the ITAT are not discussed or decided by the High Court in this order, as the appeal was withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue based on a subsequent circular issued by the department.
The High Court noted the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants (revenue) that he did not press the appeal in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015. The Court placed this submission on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original ITAT order or any specific findings related to the income tax assessment. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issue was covered by its prior decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Tata Elxi Limited. However, it provided for consequential orders if the Supreme Court reverses the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal's finding that co-operative banks were required to deduct tax at source under Section 194A was unsustainable. The appeal was dismissed based on a High Court decision and a clarification regarding the amendment to Section 194A.
The High Court agreed with the assessee that the substantial questions of law were identical to a previous case. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Settlement Commission's decision to proceed with the application, while keeping the issue of full and true disclosure open for final hearing, was not an infirmity. The court noted that the assessee had paid tax on a significant sum and that the issue of maintainability could be raised before the Settlement Commission.
The High Court held that cement used for civil works and foundations for the plant and machinery constitutes a part of the 'plant' and thus 'Capital Goods'. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim input tax credit on such cement purchased prior to commercial production.
The High Court held that the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) for interest paid by co-operative societies to members did not apply to co-operative banks for time deposits after June 1, 2015. However, for periods before this date, co-operative banks were not required to deduct tax at source.
The tribunal held that co-operative banks were not required to deduct tax at source on time deposits paid or credited before June 1, 2015, based on a clarification from the Ministry of Finance.
The High Court held that reopening a concluded assessment based on a search where no incriminating material was found, and merely by re-investigating previously accepted accounts, is impermissible. Additions cannot be made without rejecting the assessee's books of account.
The Tribunal held that the payments made by HESCOM to KPTCL were for the transmission of power and not for technical services as contemplated under Section 194J. Therefore, the requirement to deduct TDS under Section 194J was not applicable.
The High Court held that the interest earned on funds placed in fixed deposits by the BTDA, acting as a fiduciary agent for the government, should be excluded from its taxable income. The court found that the BTDA's activities were for public utility and its primary object was charitable.
The High Court held that there was no completed sale transaction in favor of the petitioners in these cases. The court emphasized that the right of redemption survives until the execution and registration of a conveyance deed, which had not occurred.
The High Court held that the date of the agreement to sell, coupled with substantial advance payment and extinguishment of rights, should be considered for determining capital gains. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of long-term capital gains.
The High Court held that reopening a concluded assessment based on a search where no incriminating material was found, and merely by re-investigating previously accepted accounts, is impermissible. Additions cannot be made without rejecting the assessee's books of account.
The High Court held that there was no completed sale transaction in favor of the petitioners in these cases. The court emphasized that the right of redemption survives until the execution and registration of a conveyance deed, which had not occurred.
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to perform their duty to produce evidence, especially since the documents were public and obtainable by them. The court also found that the application did not explain how the summoned witnesses would aid the case.
The High Court acknowledged that the questions involved were covered by its previous decisions in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel appearing for both parties agreed that the point in issue in the present appeal was covered by the decision of the High Court in ITA No. 100014/14 C/w ITA No. 100013/14, which was disposed of on 14.12.2015. Following this precedent, the Court held that the present appeal should also be dismissed. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where a matter already decided by a higher court or a coordinate bench of the same court is applied to subsequent similar cases. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT and the operative directions from that order are not detailed as they were not the subject of detailed analysis in this High Court judgment.
The High Court held that matters should be decided on merits rather than technical grounds. Since the admitted tax was subsequently deposited, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits.
The High Court held that the question involved in this appeal is covered by its previous decision in Commissioner of Income Tax –vs- Tata Elxsi Limited (2012) 349 ITR 98. Consequently, in light of this judgment, the appeal stands dismissed. However, the Court noted a submission by the learned counsel for the appellants that an appeal against the Tata Elxsi Limited judgment has been filed before the Apex Court and is pending. In the event the Apex Court reverses the judgment of the High Court, the assessing authority is directed to pass consequential orders in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in conformity with the outcome of the appeal before the Supreme Court. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the precedent.
The High Court held that the DRT has limited jurisdiction to adjudicate third-party rights. However, it noted that Schedule-II of the Income Tax Act, applicable to DRT recovery proceedings, provides for adjudication of third-party claims by the Recovery Officer before sale.
The Tribunal held that non-compliance with the procedural requirement of furnishing a certificate from the financing company would not be fatal to availing Modvat credit, especially when the duty was paid and the financing company could not claim depreciation on that portion. The High Court upheld this decision.
The High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and reiterate its earlier reply. The court also restrained the respondents from taking summary action without due process of law.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court noted that the appeal was filed with a delay of 296 days. However, the primary reason for dismissal was that the questions involved in the appeal were squarely covered by a previous decision of the same Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sri Biluru Gurubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Bagalkot in ITA No.5006/2013, decided on February 5, 2014. In light of this binding precedent, the Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal. The application for condonation of delay (IA No.2/2015) was also dismissed as a consequence of the appeal being dismissed on merits.
The High Court held that the DRT has limited jurisdiction for recovery of dues and cannot entertain applications from third parties regarding properties offered as security. However, the Income-Tax Act rules, made applicable, allow for claims to be investigated by the Recovery Officer.
The High Court held that the first two questions of law were covered by a previous decision and did not raise substantial questions of law. Regarding the third question, the court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's finding that the disputed expenditure was for repairs and maintenance, thus revenue in nature.
The Tribunal correctly held that interest accrued on non-performing assets should not be added to taxable income if the assessee follows mercantile accounting. Provisions for non-performing assets made as per RBI guidelines were also upheld.
The High Court decided the substantial questions of law based on previous judgments of the same court. The appeal was disposed of in terms of those prior decisions.
The High Court, by referring to a judgment passed on the same day in a related appeal, answered the substantial questions of law. The specific outcome for each question is not detailed in this excerpt, but the appeal was disposed of based on the answers.
The tribunal held that lease holders and quarry holders of forest areas are not liable to pay FDT. Purchasers of minerals directly from the State Government or its corporations are liable to pay FDT at 8%, while those purchasing from private lessees or NMDC are not liable.
The High Court held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer's order rejecting objections lacked reasons, constituting a denial of justice. Consequently, the order and the subsequent final declaration were quashed.