Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 16 of 26
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 The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without answering the substantial questions of law.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 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 based on the circular.
The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the revised circular from the CBDT which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue in terms of the circular.
The High Court took the memo on record and dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was due to the appellant department's decision to withdraw 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 sought to withdraw the appeal.
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 held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not give rise to substantial questions of law under Section 260-A. The court dismissed the Revenue's appeal as devoid of merit.
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 in light of the CBDT 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. Issues regarding the selection of comparables and treatment of certain income/expenses do not typically raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court allowed the department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed in light of the CBDT circular.
The High Court accepted the department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for High Court appeals. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court noted the revised CBDT circular which raised the monetary limit for High Court appeals. The Revenue did not press the appeal due to the tax effect being below the revised limit.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without deciding the 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 as per the CBDT circular. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn based on the revised CBDT circular. 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 on facts, such as the selection of comparables, 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 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. Consequently, the Revenue Department 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 to invoke this section.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable for disputes regarding the selection of comparables in transfer pricing. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient to raise a substantial question 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 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. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. However, it modified the sentence, setting aside the imprisonment and retaining the fine amount, deeming the original imprisonment sentence harsh.
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 before the High Court. The Revenue did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it based on the CBDT circular.
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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. This was based on the revised CBDT circular which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court.
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 less than the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal and sought to withdraw it. Consequently, 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 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 are not maintainable if they merely challenge factual findings of the Tribunal regarding comparables. The court found no substantial question of law arose in this case.
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 noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit for High Court appeals as per the CBDT Circular. The Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.
The High Court noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had revised the monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect in this case was below the revised limit, the Revenue did not press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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 of Karnataka, upon considering the memo filed by the appellant-assessee seeking to withdraw the appeal, and noting that the respondent-revenue had no objections, took the memo on record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the underlying dispute between the assessee and the revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant-Assessee had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue stated that they had no objections to this request. Consequently, the High Court took the memo on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as 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 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 held that the ITAT's findings were covered by previous decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.
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 comparable companies in transfer pricing do not typically constitute 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 dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed. This was in accordance with a CBDT circular revising monetary limits for filing appeals, which stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000 should not be filed before the High Court.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal as per the new CBDT circular, which stipulated that appeals should not be filed if the tax effect is below a certain monetary limit. The appeal was disposed of without answering the substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the CBDT circular, stating that the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit for High Court appeals. The appeal was disposed of without answering the substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT. Consequently, the Revenue Department sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court held that the interest paid on borrowings for acquiring property rights in sister concerns' developments is allowable as a deduction under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act. The court found no perversity in the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction.