Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 11 of 26
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular. The court noted that the appeal did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles applicable to a large number of matters.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The court did not answer the substantial questions of law.
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 The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without answering the substantial questions of law.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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeals as per the circular.
The High Court held that the issue of software expenses being revenue expenditure was settled in favor of the assessee by previous judgments. Regarding the exclusion of comparables, the court found no substantial question of law, following its recent ruling that such disputes do not warrant High Court intervention under Section 260-A.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular. The circular allows for withdrawal of appeals below specified monetary limits, provided they do not have a cascading effect or involve common principles in multiple matters.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular allowing withdrawal of pending appeals below specified monetary limits. The court noted that the appeal did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles in multiple matters.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal, following a recent CBDT circular that allowed withdrawal of pending appeals below specified tax limits. The court noted that the present appeal did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles in multiple matters.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the CBDT circular which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the appeal did not have a cascading tax effect or involve common principles in multiple matters, aligning with exceptions to the strict application of monetary limits.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's findings that the assessee had established a new unit and satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 10B. The court found that the assessee's unit was duly registered as a 100% EOU and the period in question fell within the ten-year benefit period.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular. The court noted that the appeal did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles applicable to a large number of matters.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular. The circular clarified the application of monetary limits to pending appeals, allowing withdrawal if the case did not have a cascading effect or involve common principles.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal, following a recent CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's clarification on the application of monetary limits for appeals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal, noting that it did not have a cascading effect or involve common principles in a large number of matters. The court relied on a recent CBDT circular permitting withdrawal of such appeals.
The High Court disposed of the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the revised CBDT circular which stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limits should be withdrawn or not pressed.
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.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue did not raise any substantial question of law. It affirmed that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's factual findings is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn, following a recent CBDT circular. The court noted that the present appeal did not have a cascading tax effect or involve common principles in a group of matters.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue could be withdrawn based on a subsequent CBDT circular. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable for issues concerning the selection of comparable companies or the application of filters, unless there is ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with the factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient.
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 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. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular and the Supreme Court's clarification on the application of monetary limits for appeals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 facts, such as the selection of comparables, unless the findings are ex facie perverse. The Court found no substantial question of law in this case.
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. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings on comparables does not constitute a substantial question of law.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department, as per a CBDT circular.
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 by the Tribunal, unless the finding is ex facie perverse. The court found no substantial question of law arising in this case.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue could be withdrawn as per a recent CBDT Circular, as it did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles in a large number of matters. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit. The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in terms of the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and that the trial court erred in denying specific performance. The court found that denying the relief would encourage dishonesty on the part of the defendants.
The High Court permitted the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The court noted that the appeal did not have a cascading tax effect or involve common principles in a large number of matters, aligning with the exceptions in Supreme Court judgments.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it in terms of the circular.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue Department sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular. The court noted that the appeal did not involve cascading tax effects or common principles applicable to a large number of matters.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on a recent CBDT circular. The court noted that the appeal did not involve cascading effects or common principles in multiple matters.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue department did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeals as per the circular.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's findings that the assessee had established a new unit and satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 10B. The court found that the assessee's unit was duly registered as a 100% EOU and the period in question fell within the ten-year benefit period.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's findings that the assessee had established a new unit and satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 10B. The court found that the assessee's unit was duly registered as a 100% EOU and the period in question fell within the ten-year benefit period.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's findings that the assessee had established a new unit and satisfied the conditions for deduction under Section 10B. The court found that the assessee's unit was duly registered as a 100% EOU and the period in question fell within the ten-year benefit period.
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 and sought to withdraw it.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was less than the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue Department did not press the appeal.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per the CBDT circular. The court did not answer the substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The tribunal held that the complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The accused's defense that the cheque was issued in 2008 and misused was found to be more probable, rebutting the presumption in favor of the complainant.