Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 10 of 26
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. Dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact, such as the selection of comparables, does not constitute a substantial question of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per the CBDT circular.
The High Court noted that the Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable if they merely question the selection of comparables or the application of filters, unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. The Court found no substantial question of law in this case.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue did not raise any substantial questions of law. The court found that the ITAT's decision to remand the matters for further examination was not perverse and therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if the Tribunal's findings are not ex facie perverse. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables and application of filters do not give rise to substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal held that the plaintiff failed to prove payment of sale consideration and that the suit was barred by limitation. The lower courts' decisions were upheld.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It recalculated the loss of dependency, future prospects, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses based on established legal precedents and the specific facts of each deceased's case.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they merely question the Tribunal's findings on comparability of companies, unless such findings are ex facie perverse. The Court found no substantial question of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.
The High Court held that the present appeal is not maintainable. This decision was based on a previous order of the same court which dismissed a related appeal due to monetary limits prescribed by circulars.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they merely question the selection of comparables, unless the Tribunal's finding is ex facie perverse. The court found no substantial question of law in this case.
The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It recalculated the loss of dependency, future prospects, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses based on established legal precedents and the specific facts of each deceased's case.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable unless there is a substantial question of law. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not typically raise such questions.
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 did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.
The High Court noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. It emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal is not sufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present 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 noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, finding that the income considered was incorrect and that certain heads of compensation were underestimated. The finding on contributory negligence was upheld.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority (Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) to decide the pending appeal on its merits expeditiously, within 10 weeks. Until the appeal is decided, the interim order granted by the court shall continue to benefit the petitioner.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and exclusion of expenses from turnover do not raise substantial questions of law. The court relied on its previous judgments and Supreme Court decisions, stating that mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the ITAT is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. Issues regarding the selection of comparables for transfer pricing do not typically constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue did not raise any substantial question of law. Mere dissatisfaction with the factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are maintainable only if they raise substantial questions of law. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables and the application of filters do not constitute substantial questions of law unless the Tribunal's findings are perverse.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable if they merely challenge the selection of comparables or the application of filters, as these do not raise substantial questions of law. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if the Tribunal's findings are not ex facie perverse. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not generally raise substantial questions of law.
The tribunal held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation and that their own admissions indicated their father had the right to alienate the property. The challenge to the alienations was considered a mere afterthought.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Issues regarding the selection of comparables and application of filters do not give rise to substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated on a mere change of opinion or audit objection are invalid. It also ruled that dividend income should be taxed as business income if that is the assessee's core business.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue Department did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal, following a recent CBDT circular and acknowledging that the appeal did not involve cascading effects or common principles in multiple matters. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular and the arguments that the appeal did not have a cascading effect or involve common principles in multiple matters. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court, referencing Supreme Court pronouncements and a recent CBDT circular, permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if the Tribunal's findings are not ex facie perverse. Issues regarding the selection of comparables and filters do not typically raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on the CBDT circular. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without answering the substantial questions of law.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeal based on a recent CBDT circular. The court noted that the appeal did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles in a large number of matters.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw its appeal, following a recent CBDT circular and acknowledging that the case did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles in multiple matters. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.