Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 1 of 26
The tribunal held that candidates who availed seats under the All India Quota are not exempt from bond obligations. It also allowed deferment of counseling for candidates pursuing higher studies, subject to them serving after completing their courses.
The Court permitted the petitioner-firm to pay the admitted amount to the Income Tax Department while reserving their right to contest the matter on merits. The notice to the bank was to be withdrawn upon payment.
The tribunal held that candidates who availed seats under the All India Quota are not exempt from the bond obligation. It also allowed for deferment of counseling for candidates pursuing higher studies, subject to them undertaking to serve later.
The tribunal held that candidates who availed seats under the All India Quota are not exempt from the bond obligation. It also allowed for deferment of counseling for candidates pursuing higher studies, subject to them undertaking to serve later.
The tribunal held that candidates who availed seats under the All India Quota are not exempt from the bond obligation. It also allowed for deferment of counseling for candidates pursuing higher studies, subject to them undertaking to serve later.
The tribunal held that candidates who availed seats under the All India Quota are not exempt from the bond obligation. It also allowed for deferment of counseling for candidates pursuing higher studies, subject to them undertaking to serve later.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Specific sections were amended to clarify procedures and evidence admissibility.
The High Court held that the methodology for allocation in the Ramesh Ram case applies to All India Services and not State Government services. The Tribunal's view was found to be just and proper in applying the relevant notification's procedure.
The High Court followed its previous order in an identical matter. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court of Karnataka, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, held that the appeal is not maintainable. The submission was based on two grounds: the monetary limits for filing appeals and the applicability of Circular No.3 of 2018. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as such, without delving into the merits of the case or the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a preliminary ground.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. This was based on a previous judgment of the same court in a similar case involving another educational society.
The High Court of Karnataka, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The reasoning for the dismissal was based on the appellants' own submission regarding the monetary limits and the applicability of Circular No. 3 of 2018. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the original order passed by the ITAT. Therefore, no specific finding on the substantive issues of the original assessment or the ITAT's order was made. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court found no substantial question of law arising for consideration in the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed based on the disposal of the related matter.
The High Court held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice under Section 274 does not specify the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings. Following a previous judgment, the court found the notice to be not in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the tribunal's order was justified, as the claimant exhibited signs of disability and difficulty in communication when questioned. The court found no grounds to interfere with the tribunal's decision to reject the application.
The tribunal held that the plaintiff successfully established possession of the suit property before his dispossession. The evidence, including utility bills and the admission of the estate manager, supported the plaintiff's claim.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the submission regarding monetary limits and Circular No. 3 of 2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
The High Court directed the petitioner industry to pay Rs. 10 crores as a corporate social responsibility, considering it a final payment for the rehabilitation scheme. The court also noted that the industry was complying with pollution norms.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding monetary limits and a circular issued by the CBDT.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding monetary limits and Circular No. 3 of 2018.
The High Court followed its previous judgments to decide most issues in favor of the assessee bank. However, one issue concerning bad debts was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The High Court directed the petitioner industry to pay Rs. 10 crores as a corporate social responsibility, considering it a final payment for the rehabilitation scheme. The court also noted that the industry was complying with pollution norms.
The High Court followed its previous judgments in similar cases involving the assessee bank. For most issues, the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld. However, one issue concerning bad debts was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that depreciation on the investment portfolio is allowable, and expenditure related to exempt income is not deductible. However, the issue of excess bad debts written off was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court accepted the submission made by the appellants' counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were covered by a previous judgment of the same court in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was decided in line with that precedent.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the submission made by the appellants regarding monetary limits and Circular No. 3 of 2018.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were covered by a previous judgment of the same court. This previous judgment had answered the same questions in favour of the assessee bank.
The High Court accepted the submission made by the appellants' counsel regarding the maintainability of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the assessee failed to produce relevant material before the Assessing Officer in a timely manner. The material produced was also not relatable to the assessment year in question, and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the estimation.
The High Court found that the ITAT order was contrary to the material on record, non-speaking, and vitiated by non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT's order was set aside.
The High Court expressed reservations about entertaining the PIL as it involved complex questions of fact that could not be determined in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition.
The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on a memo filed. This means the appeals were not decided on their merits.
The Tribunal's decision to allow the remuneration paid to trustees was upheld, as the reasonableness should be judged from the businessman's perspective, and the trustees had paid taxes on it. The foreign travel expenses were also allowed, as there was no material to indicate that business was not conducted during these trips.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were covered by previous judgments in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was disposed of in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Family Court was justified in awarding interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The husband, a doctor with substantial income, failed to provide sufficient evidence that the wife had independent income.
The Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on a memo filed. This means the appeals were not decided on their merits.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on a memo filed by the appellant. Therefore, the tribunal's earlier order stands, and the appeals before the High Court are no longer pursued.
The High Court followed its earlier order which was in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The substantial questions of law were answered in favour of the assessee, upholding the treatment of the settled amount as capital receipts.
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court followed a previous judgment and answered the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. The waiver of principal components of deposits and debentures was considered not liable to tax.
The High Court accepted the submission of the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the trial court failed to consider whether the document constituted secondary evidence and if the conditions for admitting it were met. The impugned order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the transactions between MEL, SREL, and the assessee's wife were genuine business transactions and not for the purpose of tax evasion. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable.
The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects and the income from agricultural land. It enhanced the compensation for loss of dependency, consortium, love and affection, estate, and funeral expenses.
The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the imposed damages and interest before the Tribunal. The respondent was instructed not to take further action until the Tribunal disposes of the petitioner's application.
The Tribunal correctly held that the assessee is entitled to Section 54 deduction for investments made towards property construction, even if completion was delayed beyond his control. It also correctly held that the accumulated provident fund balance as on the date of retirement is eligible for exemption under Section 10(12).
The High Court held that the issue of whether the provision for bad and doubtful debts was reduced from the assets side of the balance sheet needed to be ascertained. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a finding on this aspect.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The High Court noted that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal were covered by previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court itself. Therefore, the appeal was decided based on these precedents.