Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 13 of 26
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal based on the circular.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies and the application of filters do not raise substantial questions of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Such matters are considered findings of fact by the Tribunal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Appeals concerning the selection of comparables or filters do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for filing appeals. 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 for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
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 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 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 before the High Court. The Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.
The High Court granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per the revised 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 before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory limitation period of 8 years. It found that the proviso to Section 12-A(2) of the KST Act was not applicable to the petitioner as they were not a party to the earlier litigation.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the revised monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue as per the CBDT circular.
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 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 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 appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue Department sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A 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 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 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 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 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 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. Dissatisfaction with factual findings alone is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court noted that the Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the revised monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding the deduction under Section 10A was covered by a Supreme Court decision. It also noted that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if the Tribunal's findings are not ex facie perverse.
The High Court confirmed the orders of the DRT and District Magistrate, allowing the bank to proceed with the sale of the secured assets. The court also directed the bank to attempt floor-wise auction of the property and provided specific timelines for the first petitioner to hand over possession.
The High Court held that the allotment of shares to erstwhile partners in a successor company must be completed within a reasonable period, ideally within the relevant previous year of succession. A delay of 3-4 years was deemed unreasonable, leading to the applicability of capital gains tax.
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 noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for 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 before the High Court. The Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the issue regarding the recomputation of deduction under Section 10A was covered by a Supreme Court decision. It also found that appeals raising questions about the selection of comparables do not give rise to substantial questions of law unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse.
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to decree the suit for recovery of money, finding that the defendant acknowledged the payment in the MOU. However, the interest rate awarded was reduced from 24% to 11% per annum.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Issues regarding the selection of comparables do not give rise to substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for High Court appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, in accordance with the CBDT circular regarding revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The court did not answer the substantial questions of law.
The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act to direct a fresh inquiry into aspects not previously investigated, even if it may lead to an enhanced tax liability. The Tribunal was justified in directing an examination of the fair market value of the shares.
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 and sought to withdraw it.
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 noted that the tax effect in the present case 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 allotment of shares by a company succeeding a partnership firm must be completed within the relevant previous year of succession. Failure to do so attracts capital gains tax liability for the successor company.
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. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
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. The Revenue's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in terms of the circular.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue Department sought to withdraw the appeal based on this 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 High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal 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 in terms of the CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, in accordance with the CBDT circular which 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 less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue Department did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the circular.