Loading High Court cases…
364 orders · Page 3 of 8
The High Court noted that the questions raised in the appeals were already decided against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court re-assessed the income of the deceased, factored in future prospects, and adjusted deductions for taxes and personal expenses. It also revised the compensation for consortium and other conventional heads.
The High Court of Karnataka, while hearing the appeal, noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The counsel fairly conceded that the questions raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. [(2016) 385 ITR 592 (Karn)]. Based on this concession and the binding precedent, the Court found no merit in entertaining the appeal further. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. No specific findings on the merits of the ITAT's order were made, as the appeal was disposed of based on the admitted position of law as established by the earlier judgment.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to re-decide the issue. The court relied on a previous judgment that laid down guidelines for when a change in partnership constitution attracts transfer fees under Rule 17-B.
The High Court observed that the Tax Recovery Officer cannot act beyond the orders of the higher appellate authority. If the petitioner needs modification or clarification of the interim order, they should approach the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The High Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against a provisional attachment order and a show-cause notice when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the statutory mechanism to function.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The High Court permitted the appellant (Revenue) to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to seek revival if the matter falls under exceptions mentioned in a previous circular.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The Tribunal held that re-christening an impermissible 'tax' as a 'fee' without changing the underlying incidence of levy is unconstitutional. The amendment was declared ultra-vires the Constitution, and the State was directed to refund the collected fees.
The High Court held that the grounds raised by the assessee did not constitute a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The court reiterated that the assessee was not entitled to 100% deduction under Section 80-P(2) and that previous assessment orders or a CBDT circular on tax deduction at source were not relevant to the issue decided.
The High Court quashed the proceedings declaring the 6th respondent as Adhyaksha and issued a writ of quo warranto directing her to vacate the office. The court found that the respondent had not declared her correct family income to secure the caste certificate.