Loading High Court cases…
364 orders · Page 5 of 8
The High Court granted the appellant's request for leave to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that might have been formulated. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, with no specific relief granted or denied on the substantive grounds.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a concession made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue). The counsel fairly submitted that the question raised in the present appeal had already been answered against the Revenue by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)]. Therefore, following the precedent established in the Yokogawa India Ltd. case, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the case was recorded as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the concession.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) conceded that the issue raised in the present appeal had been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012) 349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The specific question of law and the reasoning behind the ITAT's order are not detailed in this judgment, as the appeal was disposed of on the concession made by the Revenue.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue). The revenue's counsel conceded that the questions of law raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the revenue by the same High Court in previous judgments. Specifically, the court referred to its decisions in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012)341 ITR 385 (Karn)] and CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [(2012)349 ITR 98 (Karn)]. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without delving into the merits of the case, as the revenue acknowledged that the grounds for appeal were not sustainable in light of existing precedents. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was decided on the basis of the revenue's concession.
The High Court of Karnataka, in its judgment, noted that the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the question raised in the present appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2013)356 ITR 549 (Karn)]. Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal further. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The specific issue decided in Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT is not detailed in this judgment, but it is the precedent that governs the present appeal. No specific operative directions were issued as the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) conceded that the question raised in the present appeal has already been decided against the revenue by the High Court itself in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013)359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court found no substantial question of law to be formulated and dismissed the appeal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The specific issue decided by the ITAT and the reasoning behind that decision are not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the appeal was disposed of based on a previous ruling by the same court. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the question raised in the present appeal has been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. Based on this submission, the High Court found no reason to entertain the appeal. The principle established in the cited case, which the present appeal is stated to be against the appellants, likely pertains to the issue that was before the ITAT. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in the appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)]. Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been authoritatively decided by the High Court in a similar case, the Revenue should not pursue appeals on the same point, thereby avoiding multiplicity of litigation. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the question raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn). Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court found no substantial question of law to be formulated or decided and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on the basis of the conceded point.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [(2012) 341 ITR 385 (Karn)]. Based on this concession and the precedent set by the earlier judgment, the appeal was accordingly dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the established legal position.
The High Court held that the appeal abates due to the dissolution of the appellant company. The appeal was accordingly disposed of as abated.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) made a fair submission that the questions raised in the present appeal have already been decided against the Revenue by this Court in the cases of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. Based on this submission and the precedent set by the Court in those cases, the appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the specific issues raised by the Revenue, relying instead on its prior rulings. The ratio decidendi is that if the questions of law raised in an appeal have already been authoritatively decided by the High Court against the Revenue, the appeal will be dismissed on that ground.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the questions of law raised in the present appeal had been decided against the appellants by this Court in its previous judgments in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. and CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. Based on these precedents, the Court found no merit in the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) that the question raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [(2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)]. Based on this concession, the appeal was accordingly dismissed. The specific issue decided by the ITAT and the reasoning behind that decision are not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of a prior precedent. The ratio decidendi is that if a substantial question of law raised in an appeal has been authoritatively decided against the Revenue by the High Court in a previous judgment, the Revenue's subsequent appeal on the same question will be dismissed.
The High Court directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the pending revision petition expeditiously, preferably within three months. The petitioner was asked to appear before the authority on August 10, 2017.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn). Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The specific issue decided by the ITAT and the reasoning behind the precedent case are not elaborated in this judgment, but the principle applied is that a prior decision of the High Court on a similar question of law binds the present appeal.
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had approached the court without clean hands by intentionally withholding crucial documents. The court found that the petitioner was trying to mislead the court by not producing relevant notifications.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the questions raised in the present appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in two previous decisions: CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn) and CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn). Based on this submission and the established precedent, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order and accordingly dismissed the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on prior rulings.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the question raised in the present appeal had been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn). Based on this submission and the precedent set by the earlier judgment, the Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been conclusively decided by the High Court, subsequent appeals raising the same issue are likely to be dismissed following the precedent.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal has already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn). Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided against the Revenue by the same High Court, the Revenue should not pursue identical appeals. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeal was dismissed on the basis of a precedent.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the questions raised in this appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in previous judgments: CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn) and CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn). Based on this submission, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. The ratio decidendi is that if the issues raised in an appeal have been authoritatively decided against the Revenue by the same High Court, the appeal is likely to be dismissed.
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the application for the return of the Indira Vikas Patras, finding no conclusive evidence of their seizure. However, it directed the CBI to provide the address of retired officers against whom the petitioner had obtained a decree for damages.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. reported in [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn). Therefore, based on this submission and the precedent, the appeal was accordingly dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was recorded as the appeal was disposed of on the concession made by the appellant's counsel. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) fairly submitted that the question raised in this appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 98 (Karn). Therefore, based on this submission and the precedent, the appeal was dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the issue was recorded as the appeal was disposed of on the basis of a prior ruling. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, noted the submission that the question raised in the appeal had already been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 385 (Karn). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The specific issue decided in CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. is not detailed in this judgment, but the principle is that the present appeal is bound by that precedent. No other issues were decided, and no operative directions were given other than the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court of Karnataka, comprising H.G. Ramesh, J., and K.S. Mudagal, J., dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on a concession made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The counsel fairly submitted that the issue raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by the High Court itself in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Dev ([2006] 284 ITR 582). Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court found no merit in entertaining the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that the High Court will not entertain an appeal on a question of law that has already been authoritatively decided by it against the appellant.
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court's decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. The counsel conceded that the issue raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by the same High Court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Dev ([2006] 284 ITR 582). Therefore, following its own precedent, the Court found no merit in entertaining the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. No specific findings on the merits of the ITAT's order were made, as the appeal was disposed of on the concession by the appellant.
The High Court affirmed the trial court's decision to award ₹20,000 per month as interim maintenance but modified the order to grant it from the date of the application, not the date of the order.
The High Court noted that the question of law raised in the appeals had already been decided against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court of Karnataka, while hearing the appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, noted the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue). The counsel conceded that the question of law raised in the present appeal had already been decided against the Revenue by the same Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn). Following this precedent, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court granted the appellant's request for leave to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or any substantial questions of law that might have arisen from the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided as the appeal itself was withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the question of law raised in the appeals had already been decided against the Revenue by a previous judgment of the same court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that the question of law raised in the present appeal has already been answered against the appellant (the revenue) by this Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. M.A. Endowment Trust [2013] 354 ITR 219 (Karn). The reasoning is based on the precedent established by the High Court in the cited case. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar question of law has been decided against the revenue by a coordinate bench of the High Court, then the appeal filed by the revenue on the same question should be dismissed. The operative direction is to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court of Karnataka, based on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue), held that the question raised in the present appeal has been answered against the appellants by this Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton And Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karn). Consequently, the Court found no reason to entertain the appeal further. The ratio decidendi is that if a legal issue has been definitively settled by a higher court within its jurisdiction, subsequent appeals raising the same issue are likely to be dismissed summarily. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court found the writ petition premature as the representation was still pending with SBI. It also stated that there was no vested legal right to mandate the 'check off' facility, and it was a policy decision for SBI to make.
The High Court disposed of the writ appeal by directing the Single Judge to decide the related writ petition without being influenced by the previous order. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, keeping all questions open.
The High Court held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not limited to amounts payable but also applies to amounts paid. However, if the recipient has already paid tax on the amount received, the expenditure may be permitted.
The High Court did not decide the merits of the individual allotments but directed the Director of APMC to examine the case thoroughly. The Director is to review the allotments based on the grounds raised by the petitioners, specifically concerning adherence to Rules 7 and 8 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Rules, 2004.
The High Court modified the ITAT's order, allowing the company to deposit 30% of the total tax demand instead of 50%. The remaining 10% was to be deposited within one month.
The High Court held that the assessee should first approach the CIT(Appeals) with a stay petition or the Assessing Authority for not being treated as in default. No interference was warranted at this stage.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the joint memo. The impugned award of the Labour Court was modified to reflect the settlement terms agreed upon by both parties.
The High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and that the grounds raised were appealable matters, not grounds for review. Therefore, the review petitions lacked merit.
The High Court held that the legal expenditure incurred to defend the mining lease was revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure. The court found that the expenditure was incurred to protect the existing business and leasehold rights, not to acquire a new asset.
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 High Court found the issues in this petition to be similar to a previous case and appointed Sri. S. Ramdas as the sole arbitrator. All contentions of the parties were kept open to be urged before the Arbitrator.
The High Court appointed Sri. S. Ramdas, Civil Engineer (Retd.), KPWD, as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. All contentions of the parties on merits were kept open to be urged before the Arbitrator.
The High Court held that the Labour Court's award was vitiated due to non-consideration of evidence and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The court emphasized the need to consider all evidence to resolve the dispute regarding closure and voluntary retirement.
The High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessment is to be redone in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Citizen Co-operative Society.
The High Court found the issues raised in this petition to be similar to a previous case. Consequently, the court appointed Sri S. Ramdas, Civil Engineer (Retd.), as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.