Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 12 of 26
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 comparable selection, unless the findings are perverse. The selection of comparables does not typically raise a substantial question of law.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per the CBDT circular.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 held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. Dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal regarding comparables does not constitute a substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the lower courts erred in convicting the accused as the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend such a large sum. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act was rebutted, and the debt was not proven to be legally enforceable.
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 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 less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue Department did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it in terms of the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's factual findings is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.
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 High Court noted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the circular.
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 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.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, since the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not generally constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal based on the revised CBDT circular which stipulated a higher monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without answering the substantial questions of law.
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. Such issues do not give rise to 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 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 of fact 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. The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on this circular.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act do not lie merely on dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal regarding the selection of comparables. Such appeals are not maintainable unless there is a substantial question of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, following the CBDT circular that revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal based on the new circular.
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's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in light of the CBDT circular.
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 of Karnataka, upon recording the memo filed by the appellant-assessee seeking permission to withdraw the appeal, and noting that the learned counsel for the Revenue had no objection, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No substantial questions of law were formulated or decided on merits. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in some cases, primarily by recalculating the loss of dependency based on income tax returns and adjusting amounts for loss of amenities and future prospects. The rate of interest was also scaled down from 8% to 6% per annum in most cases.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law did not arise for consideration. It relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding the computation of Section 10A deduction and a High Court judgment stating that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless the Tribunal's finding is ex facie perverse.
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 as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that similar appeals filed by the Revenue against the same ITAT order had already been dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal by the assessee did not survive for consideration.
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 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 present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue Department did not press the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the assessee's appeal as it no longer survived for consideration, given the prior dismissal of the Revenue's appeals on the same matter. The assessee's rights were left open for future proceedings if the Revenue challenged the earlier High Court orders.
The High Court noted that similar appeals filed by the Revenue against the same ITAT order had been dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the assessee was also dismissed as it no longer survived for consideration.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn/not pressed without answering the substantial questions of law.
The High Court took the memo on record and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that similar appeals filed by the Revenue against the same ITAT order had already been dismissed. Therefore, the present appeal by the assessee did not survive for consideration.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act do not lie on issues of whether comparables were rightly picked or filters applied, unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the CBDT circular which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed or should be withdrawn.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the tax effect in the present case was less than the revised monetary limit, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted the revised CBDT circular and the fact that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue Department sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables for transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. Issues regarding the selection of comparable companies do not typically constitute substantial questions of law.
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, particularly concerning the selection of comparables. 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 there is no ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables or application of filters do not raise substantial questions of law.
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 and sought to withdraw it.
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 sought to withdraw the appeal based on this circular.
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's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in terms of the circular.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was less than the prescribed limit for filing an appeal before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue Department did not press the appeal.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Revenue did not press the appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular.