Loading High Court cases…
513 orders · Page 3 of 11
The Tribunal held that stock-in-trade, by definition, is not a capital asset and therefore cannot be considered for the purpose of Section 54F. The High Court agreed, stating that capital gains arise from capital assets, and stock-in-trade is explicitly excluded from this definition.
The High Court held that it is mandatory to frame a substantial question of law before hearing appeals under Section 260-A. The previous orders were set aside as they were passed without adhering to this procedural requirement.
The High Court held that the circular regarding monetary limits is applicable to pending proceedings, citing previous judgments. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the government order did not retrospectively reduce pay scales, but rather protected the existing pay and adjusted future increments against it. The court found no violation of service rules regarding pay protection.
The High Court held that the proviso to FR 49(iii) only requires sanction for payment beyond three months, not for entitlement itself. The Office Memorandum was not applicable retrospectively and could not nullify the Fundamental Rules.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. It noted that the Revenue conceded that questions related to the sale of land were not applicable to the assessment year in question. The remaining issue regarding loans advanced to sister concerns was covered by a previous High Court decision.
The High Court held that the agreement was a joint venture, not a sub-contract, as income was directly shared. It also held that Section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable as no expenditure was claimed, and that taxing Sri Bapuji's share in the assessee's hands would lead to double taxation.
The High Court held that the AAR's decision to dispose of the application as infructuous was not unreasonable, considering the petitioner's conduct in participating in assessment proceedings without objection. The court found no ground for interference.
The High Court dismissed the husband's petition to reduce maintenance. It allowed the wife and children's petition in part, enhancing the wife's maintenance while keeping the awards for the daughter and son undisturbed.
The High Court dismissed the husband's petition to reduce maintenance. It allowed the wife and children's petition in part, enhancing the wife's maintenance while keeping the awards for the daughter and son undisturbed.
The High Court held that the CAT's order was correct and should not be interfered with. It noted that similarly situated individuals, who were also re-deployed, had received the same benefits.
The High Court held that the amendments to Section 200A, which allowed for the computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, demand notices for fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, issued under Section 200A, were without authority of law.
The High Court sanctioned the scheme of arrangement, allowing the Transferee Company to acquire the Transferor Company's business. The sanction was granted subject to and without relaxation of any provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that the amendments to Section 200A, which allowed for the computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, demand notices for fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, issued under Section 200A, were without authority of law.
The High Court held that the amendments to Section 200A, which allowed for the computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, demand notices for fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, issued under Section 200A, were without authority of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court held that the amendments to Section 200A, which allowed for the computation and intimation of fees under Section 234E, were prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, demand notices for fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, issued under Section 200A, were without authority of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was not sustainable and directed a re-look into the matter. The court noted that the developers had the power to alienate the property and had entered upon it.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was not sustainable and directed a re-look into the matter. The court noted that the developers had the power to alienate the property and had entered upon it.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was not sustainable and directed a re-look into the matter. The court noted that the developers had the power to alienate the property and had entered upon it.
The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for refund within three weeks. The court emphasized that the revenue must refund amounts within statutory periods and cannot assign technical reasons for non-compliance.
The High Court accepted the Official Liquidator's report and directed the dissolution of the company. The Official Liquidator was instructed to file a copy of the order with the Registrar of Companies.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court at Kalaburagi. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass an appropriate order on the pending appeal.
The tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner likely overlooked the Tahsildar's certificate showing the petitioner's low income. The matter was therefore remitted back for reconsideration.
The tribunal held that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as evidenced by his consent to a sale deed in favor of a third party. However, the defendants admitted receiving Rs. 13,00,000 in a subsequent sale deed, contrary to the trial court's finding.
The tribunal held that the Official Liquidator had fulfilled all requirements for the winding up of the company. The company's affairs were not conducted prejudicially, and it was therefore liable to be dissolved.
The High Court noted that the issue was covered by its own previous decision in a similar case. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court of Karnataka, while considering the writ petition, granted two weeks' time to the petitioner to comply with office objections finally. The Court ordered that failing compliance with the office objections within the stipulated period, the petition would stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. The Court dispensed with the production of the English translation copy of the documents. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the demand notice, nor does it provide any findings on the issues raised by the petitioner. The operative direction is conditional on the compliance with office objections.
The High Court held that, in light of Circular No. 19/2015, cooperative banks were not required to deduct tax at source on interest paid on time deposits to their members before June 1, 2015. Consequently, the ITAT's direction was not sustainable.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The High Court held that interest paid to members of a co-operative bank above Rs. 10,000 was not taxable if paid before June 1, 2015. Gratuity payable to employees was deductible. Interest receivable from non-performing assets, even under the mercantile system, was not taxable if the asset ceased to yield income.
The High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation, allowing the transferor company to merge with the transferee company. The transferor company was dissolved without being wound up.
The High Court held that payments for transmission charges and SLDC charges to KPTCL are not in the nature of technical services attracting Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.
The High Court granted permission to the appellant's counsel to withdraw the present appeals. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of as withdrawn. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the underlying ITAT order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn, with no decision on the substantive issues of the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
The Tribunal held that the roaming process between service providers is automatic and does not require human intervention, thus not qualifying as technical services. Consequently, Vodafone was not in default for not deducting TDS on these charges.
The High Court held that while regulations might require a court order, the petitioner's consistent use of her stepfather's name in various official documents demonstrated the genuineness of her request. The court directed the passport authorities to consider the inclusion of the stepfather's name upon receiving an affidavit from him.
The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee failed to demonstrate accrued liability was contrary to the material on record. The Court held that the materials produced by the assessee needed factual adjudication in light of Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court noted that the revenue's appeals against the same tribunal order were dismissed. The appellant bank, therefore, did not press their appeals.
The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal of the application was unsustainable. It found that the brother was an authorized person to file the affidavit and that the delay was not solely attributable to the petitioner, especially given the respondents' own delay.
The High Court found the issues in this petition to be similar to a previous case. It appointed Sri S. Ramdas, a retired Civil Engineer, as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition, and the respondent Income Tax Department did not object. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
The High Court set aside the draft assessment order. The respondents were permitted to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law, with the petitioner waiving any objections regarding limitation.
The petitioner, IBM India Private Limited, filed a memo to withdraw the writ petition. The Income Tax Department did not object to the withdrawal.
The High Court observed that the impugned judgment and award were appealable. It also suggested that the petitioners' apprehension about receiving compensation could be addressed by making applications in the execution proceedings.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition. The respondents, including the Income Tax Department, did not object to the withdrawal.
The learned counsel for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The court granted the leave to withdraw, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court permitted the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the case falls under exceptions mentioned in a previous circular.
The High Court granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The High Court granted permission to the appellants to withdraw their appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.