Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2018

The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that the failure to provide reasons for reopening the assessment, even if the assessee participated in proceedings, is a jurisdictional defect. This defect renders the reassessment order invalid.

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 Department did not press the appeal.

The High Court noted the new CBDT circular which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal, seeking to withdraw it based on the circular.

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. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient to raise a substantial question of law.

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for High Court appeals. The Revenue department did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.

The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in granting exemption under Section 11. It also upheld the Tribunal's decision to disallow additions made by the assessing authority concerning building and infrastructure development funds.

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 and sought to withdraw it.

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 Tribunal held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement and the receipt of the advance amount. Therefore, the suit for specific performance was not maintainable.

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The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the Revenue did not press the appeal due to the tax effect being less than the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular.

The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for High Court appeals as per a recent CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeals.

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for High Court 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 less than the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.

The High Court held that the question of law raised by the Revenue was not a substantial question of law but a question of fact. The Revenue had not raised the issue of genuineness or colorable device before the Tribunal.

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, therefore, sought to withdraw the appeal.

The High Court noted that the Revenue Department did not press the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit as per the new CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they only raise questions about the selection of comparables, unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient.

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. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not typically constitute 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 and sought to withdraw it.

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the lorry's insurer, upholding the tribunal's finding of contributory negligence. However, the appeals filed by the claimants were partly allowed, with the court enhancing the compensation awarded in several cases.

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit. 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 below the revised monetary limit. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the circular.

The High Court held that the complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the substantial sum of Rs. 6,50,000/-. Consequently, the burden did not shift to the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the Revenue did not press the appeal in light of the CBDT circular and the tax effect being below the prescribed limit.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the tax effect in the case was less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per the new CBDT circular.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, without answering the substantial questions of law. This was based on a revised CBDT circular that increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts.

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, without answering the substantial questions of law. This was in accordance with the CBDT circular which allowed withdrawal of pending appeals below the specified tax limits.

The High Court held that the circular regarding monetary limits for appeals is applicable to pending matters, citing previous judgments. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal as per the CBDT circular. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without answering the substantial questions of law.

The High Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance due to his conduct and failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness. However, the defendants were directed to refund the entire Rs. 5,00,000/- with enhanced interest.

The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the revised CBDT circular which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed.

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, following its previous decision that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless the Tribunal's finding is ex facie perverse. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court allowed the Revenue Department to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for High Court appeals as per the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.

The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on a revised CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals before High Courts, and the tax effect in this case being below the revised limit.

The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn based on the revised CBDT circular. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal, seeking to withdraw it in terms of the circular.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the revised CBDT circular which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. This was in accordance with a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case fell below the revised limit.

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 appeal was less than the revised monetary limit for High Court appeals as per the CBDT circular. The Revenue's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal based on this circular.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, without answering the substantial questions of law, based on the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT Circular. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the revised CBDT circular which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below a certain monetary limit should not be filed.

The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if the Tribunal's findings are not perverse. Appeals concerning the selection of comparables do not give rise to substantial questions of law.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, following the CBDT circular which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. The court did not answer the substantial questions of law.

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn in view of the CBDT circular regarding revised monetary limits for filing appeals.