Loading High Court cases…
513 orders · Page 11 of 11
The High Court held that the petition for a direction to transfer the deducted amount does not arise. It granted liberty to the petitioners to approach income tax authorities with material to establish that the 20% deduction towards income tax is impermissible.
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, following a previous Division Bench judgment, allowed the appeal in part. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the exemption claims based on Sections 11 and 13 of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court, following its previous decisions on identical issues, held that the Revenue had not satisfactorily proved the assessee to be a co-operative bank disentitling it to the Section 80P(2)(a)(i) benefit. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the assessee society is not a co-operative bank for the purposes of Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act. The court agreed with previous decisions of the High Court on identical issues, finding no merit in the Revenue's questions of law.
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is to re-examine the exemptions claimed by the assessee with reference to Sections 11 and 13 of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court disposed of the appeal following the CBDT circular which stipulated that appeals with a subject matter below Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable. The Revenue did not dispute this submission.
The High Court disposed of the appeal by following a circular regarding the monetary limit for appeals. The Revenue did not dispute the respondent's submission that the appeal was not maintainable.
The High Court disposed of the appeal by following a circular which stated that appeals involving amounts less than Rs. 20 lakhs were not maintainable. Therefore, the ITAT's decision on the royalty issue was not disturbed.
The High Court observed that the Commissioner's earlier finding that the revision petition was not maintainable on merits should not bind the Commissioner in considering the revised return. The court directed that the application for condonation of delay should be considered, and if delay is condoned, the revised return should be examined on merits.