Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 15 of 26
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. The court noted that the tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court, and the Revenue did not press 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 noted that the tax effect in the present case was less than the prescribed monetary limit for filing an appeal. 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 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 appeal 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 Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued a revised circular increasing the monetary limit for filing appeals. Since the tax effect in the present case fell below this new limit, the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue.
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 are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. Issues concerning the selection of comparables and application of filters do not typically constitute 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. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding comparables does not constitute a substantial question of law.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal, 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 no substantial question of law arises in this case, following its previous judgment in a similar matter. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that disputes regarding comparable companies do not constitute substantial questions of law under Section 260-A.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they merely challenge the factual findings of the Tribunal regarding the selection of comparables. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings does not constitute a substantial question of law.
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 disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, in accordance with a CBDT circular that revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The court noted that the tax effect was below the threshold for High Court appeals.
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. The Revenue's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal in light of the CBDT circular.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, without answering the substantial questions of law. This was in accordance with the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limits for filing appeals.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
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 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 appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies for transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was 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 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 High Court appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for High Court appeals. The appeal was disposed of 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 do not raise substantial questions of law. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and application of filters do not raise substantial questions of law. The court also referred to a Supreme Court decision on the computation of deduction under Section 10A, which supported the assessee's position.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the CBDT circular.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn by the Revenue. The court noted that the tax effect in the case was below 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. The court noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals, as per 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 Tribunal found both the tempo driver (75% negligence) and the motorcycle rider (25% negligence) responsible for the accident. The High Court modified the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.
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 CBDT circular.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the CBDT circular.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit specified by the CBDT. The court did not answer the 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 sought to withdraw 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. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables for ALP determination do not typically constitute 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, unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. The court found no substantial question of law in this case.
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 disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the revised circular from the CBDT which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue without answering the substantial questions of law.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the departmental circular. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court took the memo on record and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court held that the issue regarding exclusion of expenses from turnover is covered by the Supreme Court decision in HCL Technologies Ltd. It also noted that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies do not raise 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.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as per a departmental circular. The circular permitted withdrawal of appeals where the disputed quantum was less than fifty lakhs.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn in light of the CBDT's revised circular on monetary limits for filing appeals.
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 held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. The selection of comparables in transfer pricing cases, without perversity, does not constitute a substantial question 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 allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn in light of the CBDT circular and the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.
The High Court dismissed 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.