Loading High Court cases…
513 orders · Page 9 of 11
The High Court disposed of the appeal in similar terms as a previous related appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if they succeeded in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on the same subject matter.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms similar to a previous order. This included liberty for the Revenue to revive the appeal if they succeeded in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on the same subject matter.
The High Court recorded the submission of the revenue's counsel that the appeals no longer survived for consideration in light of a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in similar terms as the previous case. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if they succeeded in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on the same subject matter.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in the same terms as the previous similar case. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if they succeeded in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in similar terms as a previous related appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if they succeeded in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court on the same subject matter.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding that interest paid on capital borrowed for business purposes is allowable cannot be considered erroneous. The Tribunal had also found that the assessee's spending on properties was part of its regular real estate business for earning profits, not for acquiring fixed assets.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer was unsustainable as the Tribunal, being the last fact-finding authority, should have decided the issue. The High Court set aside the ITAT's order.
The High Court, with the consent of both parties, clarified its previous judgment. It held that the application for condonation of delay in filing the revised return must be considered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as it is the appropriate authority.
The High Court set aside the re-assessment orders and directed the authority to redo the exercise after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This was on the condition of the petitioner paying costs to the department.
The High Court recorded the submission of the revenue's counsel that the appeals no longer survived for consideration in light of a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, following its own previous judgments in similar cases. The tribunal's decision, which allowed the reduction from total turnover, was upheld.
The High Court held that since the revenue could not produce acknowledgment of service for the notice under Section 143(2), the substantial questions of law did not arise for consideration. The appellate authorities' findings were in consonance with the Act.
The High Court held that since the provision for interest was contingent and later reversed, no income accrued to the payees, thus negating the liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194A. The court also found that the provisions of Section 201(1) as they existed during the relevant assessment years were not applicable.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT Circular which stated that appeals involving amounts less than Rs. 20 Lakhs should be disposed of as not maintainable.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a CBDT circular regarding appeals involving amounts less than Rs. 20 Lakhs.
The High Court accepted the Revenue's submission based on the CBDT circular. The appeal was disposed of as not maintainable, without delving into the substantial question of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT Circular which stated that appeals involving amounts less than Rs. 20 Lakhs should be disposed of as not maintainable.
The High Court found that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract could not be proved, thus the relief of specific performance was erroneously granted. However, the payment of part sale consideration was undisputed.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT Circular which stated that appeals involving amounts less than Rs. 20 Lakhs should be disposed of as not maintainable.
The High Court found that the revenue authority passed the order hurriedly without proper application of mind to the petitioner's objections. The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on a joint memo filed by both parties. The parties agreed to a settlement where the employee consented to deductions for a loan and income tax paid by the corporation.
The High Court noted the Revenue's submission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the appellants to file a fresh appeal on the same cause of action.
The High Court held that securities held under 'held to maturity' should be treated as stock-in-trade. It also held that expenses incurred in connection with the sale of shares had a nexus with the transfer and were permissible deductions.
The High Court held that absorption of the workmen in KSC & ST DC was not permissible as the Corporation's objective is welfare, not running ancillary units. The closure of the watch unit was not illegal.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following a previous judgment with identical questions of law. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The High Court directed the respondents to issue a corrected second copy of the marks card, reflecting the petitioner's name as 'Dominic S.' and his father's name as 'Ambrose K.L.'. This was based on other official documents confirming the correct names.
The High Court followed a previous Division Bench judgment which held that expenses incurred in foreign currency are not required to be excluded from export turnover for calculating deductions under Section 10A/10B. Therefore, the ITAT's order was upheld.
The Tribunal confirmed the Appellate Commissioner's order, holding that the provision for current category investments or available for sale securities was an allowable deduction. This was based on the treatment of these securities as stock-in-trade valued as per RBI guidelines and market rates.
The High Court held that Section 24 of the Act, as amended in 2013, is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14. However, the court found that Section 44 of the Act, concerning joint trials, was vague, ambiguous, and potentially violated fundamental rights, but dismissed the challenge due to lack of specific material demonstrating prejudice.
The High Court held that Section 24 of the Act, as amended in 2013, is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 14. However, the court found that Section 44 of the Act, concerning joint trials, was vague, ambiguous, and potentially violated fundamental rights, but dismissed the challenge due to lack of specific material demonstrating prejudice.
The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) decided not to accept the Disciplinary Committee's report and held the auditor not guilty of professional misconduct. The Council found that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove collusion or misconduct, and that the allegations likely arose from inter-se disputes between ISKCON branches.
The tribunal held that the contempt proceedings cannot be used to decide issues not addressed in the original order. Since the question of interest on revised pay-scale amounts was not decided, and the company had settled claims as per Supreme Court and BIFR orders, there was no contempt.
The court accepted the explanation for the delay in complying with the order. Since compliance was made, the contempt proceedings were dropped.
The High Court held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) without issuing a proper notice under Section 274. The court found that the notice issued was for Section 271(1)(b), indicating a non-application of mind and a violation of natural justice.
The High Court allowed the review petition, recalling its previous order that dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the substantial question of law in the current appeal was different from earlier years, and its prior dismissal was based on a misunderstanding.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a circular stating that appeals involving amounts less than Rs. 20 lakhs are not maintainable.
The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for transferring income tax files from Kolkata to Bengaluru jurisdiction. The respondents were asked to take necessary steps expeditiously, within four weeks from the receipt of the order, if the law permits.
The High Court noted that Section 234A does not explicitly allow for the reduction of self-assessment tax paid before the due date when calculating interest. However, it also referenced a Supreme Court judgment and a CBDT circular suggesting that interest should not be charged on self-assessment tax paid before the due date.
The High Court held that the provision for filing revised returns existed and that once a revised return is filed, it substitutes the original return. The court also found that the rejection of rectification applications was beyond the statutory time limit, making the orders passed without jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not satisfied. The ITAT's decision to set aside the CIT's order was upheld as it was well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the rental income should be assessed in the hands of the individual assessee, despite previous and subsequent years' assessments being in the HUF status. The High Court found this inconsistent treatment for a single assessment year to be unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct, specifically "other misconduct" under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. This was based on his admissions under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and his failure to respond to notices.
The tribunal held that the accident was not due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider, but rather the tanker driver. The court also ruled against applying the 'split multiplier' formula for calculating loss of dependency.
The High Court held that the plaintiff proved certain properties as ancestral joint family properties, but failed to prove others. The court also found that the defendants failed to prove a prior partition.
The High Court held that the order passed by the Regional Commissioner was not a speaking order as it lacked reasons and findings. The court emphasized that assigning reasons is crucial for fair procedure and to prevent arbitrariness.
The High Court found the appeal to be without merit and dismissed it, following its earlier decision. The court clarified that parties would be bound by the Supreme Court's judgment on similar issues.
The High Court noted that the issue was identical to a previous appeal which was dismissed with liberty to revive. Following that precedent, the current appeal was also dismissed with similar liberty.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked merit and followed the previous High Court decision. The court also clarified that parties would be bound by the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLPs.
The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, finding the original calculation of loss of dependency and conventional heads to be insufficient. The court also upheld the Tribunal's apportionment of negligence between the two vehicles.