Loading High Court cases…
513 orders · Page 10 of 11
The High Court dismissed the appeal, granting the Revenue liberty to revive it if they succeed in their Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on the same issue.
The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It remanded one issue regarding the allocation of expenses to the AO for fresh consideration. Other issues were decided in favour of the assessee, upholding the ITAT's findings.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following a previous common judgment. The court agreed with the ITAT's interpretation of the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) as remedial and retrospective.
The High Court held that the Settlement Commission is not required to adjudicate on the Commissioner's objection at the initial stage. The Commission can proceed with the application if it is not prima facie invalid, with a final decision to be made after further reports and satisfaction of full disclosure.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following a previous Division Bench judgment on similar issues involving the same parties. The court did not delve into the merits of the penalty proceedings themselves.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following a previous Division Bench judgment in a similar case involving the same parties. This implies the High Court agreed with the ITAT's reasoning or the precedent set.
The Tribunal held that the CIT had no jurisdiction to revise an assessment order that was no longer in existence due to a prior revision under Section 264. The Tribunal also found the revenue's cross-objections to be not maintainable.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel did not dispute the assessee's submission regarding the substantial questions of law. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following a previous Division Bench judgment on similar issues. This implies the High Court agreed with the ITAT's reasoning regarding the penalty proceedings.
The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's order rejecting the applications. The court observed that the trial court's reasoning for rejection was valid and there were no grounds to interfere.
The High Court held that the appeal had become infructuous and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. This was due to a previous High Court order in the assessee's case for the same assessment year.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by both parties that the issues were covered by a previous Division Bench judgment of the same court.
The High Court allowed the petitions, quashing the reassessment notices. The court relied on a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, which clarified that income from non-SLR investments by banks is part of their business income, citing a Supreme Court decision.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following a previous judgment in a similar case. The court found that the ITAT's decision to grant registration was correct based on the precedent.
The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the reassessment notice. It relied on a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, which stated that income from non-SLR investments by banks is part of their business income, citing a Supreme Court decision.
The High Court allowed the petitions, quashing the reassessment notices. The court relied on a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, which clarified that income from non-SLR investments by banks is part of their business income, citing a Supreme Court decision.
The High Court held that expenses incurred in foreign currency for software development services outside India are not to be excluded from export turnover. It also held that exchange fluctuation loss should not be reduced from total turnover for Section 10A deduction.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. It followed a previous Division Bench judgment of the same court in a similar case.
The High Court accepted the submissions of both parties. It was held that the appeals were not maintainable in light of the circular and the parties' agreement.
The High Court held that the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable before the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, agreeing with the ITAT's decision. The court followed its own previous judgments which held that the assessee society was not a co-operative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4).
The High Court noted that the parties involved had filed a joint memo indicating a settlement. The court accepted this settlement and directed the concerned court to draw a decree accordingly.
The High Court held that the rate of 9% per annum granted by the CAT for delayed pensionary benefits is reasonable and just. The court found no reason to interfere with the CAT's discretion.
The High Court agreed with the ITAT's decision, finding no merit in the revenue's questions of law. The court held that the assessee society was not a co-operative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4) of the Act.
The High Court modified the award by enhancing the compensation amount. It considered the claimant's age and the need for an attendant, adjusting the calculation for future attendant charges.
The High Court held that the appeal lacked merit, following its previous decisions. It agreed with the Tribunal's dismissal of the revenue's appeal, stating that the revenue had not satisfactorily proved the assessee to be a co-operative bank disentitling it to the deduction.
The court appointed Sri S. Ramdas, Civil Engineer, Chief Engineer (Retd.), KPWD, as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. All contentions of the parties on merits were kept open to be urged before the Arbitrator.
The High Court held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The court followed its previous judgments on identical issues.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue was identical to previous cases decided in favor of the assessee. The court agreed with the ITAT's decision to follow the High Court's prior judgments on the matter.
The High Court, following its previous decisions, held that the assessee society is not a co-operative bank for the purpose of Section 80P(4) of the Act. The court found no merit in the revenue's questions of law.
The High Court agreed with the ITAT's decision, holding that the assessee society was not a cooperative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The court found no merit in the Revenue's questions of law.
The High Court agreed with the ITAT's decision, finding no merit in the Revenue's questions of law. The court held that the issue was identical to a previous case where the appeal was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the issue was identical to a previous case where the questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit and deserved to be dismissed.
The Tribunal erred in relying on Form 16 (Ex.P15) to determine the deceased's income, as there was no evidence of other income sources besides his salary. The compensation awarded was therefore modified to a lower amount.
The High Court held that the issue was identical to a previous case where the questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee. The court found no merit in the Revenue's questions of law and dismissed the appeal.
The High Court held that the trial court erred in granting specific performance without a prayer for a declaration to set aside the subsequent sale deeds. The court also noted issues with the plaintiff's conduct and the delay in filing the suit.
The High Court held that the issue was identical to previous cases decided in favour of the assessee. It agreed with the ITAT's decision that the assessee was not a co-operative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4).
The High Court held that the issue was identical to previous cases decided in favor of the assessee. It agreed with the ITAT's decision, which followed the High Court's own prior judgments on the matter.
The High Court held that the issue was identical to a previous case where the questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee. The court found no merit in the Revenue's questions of law and dismissed the appeal.
The High Court held that the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The court agreed with the ITAT's decision, which followed previous High Court judgments.
The High Court found that the ITAT's decision was not based on an examination of relevant material regarding the nature of the activities. It held that expenses for technical services rendered outside India should be excluded from export turnover, distinguishing them from services integral to software development.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court held that the CAG report, not being available for judicial scrutiny, cannot be the basis for registering criminal cases. The FIRs were found to be defective as they were not registered in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Cr.P.C.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the Revenue's submission that the subject matter involved in the case was less than Rs. 20 Lakhs, following a CBDT circular.