Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2018

The High Court allowed the Revenue's request 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 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 Revenue to withdraw its appeal as it had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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 held that the lease agreement did not grant defendant 1 the right to mortgage the leasehold rights to the bank. The court found that the bank had sanctioned the loan without properly ascertaining defendant 1's title, relying solely on the lease deed.

The High Court held that the interest paid on borrowings for acquiring property rights in buildings developed by sister concerns is allowable as a deduction under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act. The court found no perversity in the Tribunal's decision, which was consistent with a previous ruling in favour of the assessee.

The High Court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out to justify a review of the order dated July 11, 2018. The Court considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners (Revenue) and perused the material on record. Based on this consideration, the Court concluded that the grounds for review were not met. Therefore, the Review Petition was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC requires an error apparent on the face of the record, and such an error was not demonstrated by the Revenue in this instance. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the petition.

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 and sought to withdraw it.

The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn, noting that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals.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The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn based on the revised CBDT circular. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn without answering the substantial questions of law.

The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn by the Revenue. The court noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular.

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 interest paid on borrowings for acquiring property rights in sister concerns' developments is allowable as a deduction. The tribunal's finding was not perverse.

The High Court noted that the main appeal before the ITAT had been decided. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal before the High Court, which was based on an interlocutory order, had become infructuous.

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

The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that dredgers are ocean-going vessels or ships, not machinery. Therefore, they are not subject to entry tax under the relevant Act.

The High Court held that the issues regarding Section 10A were covered by a Supreme Court decision. For the transfer pricing issues, the Court found that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings on comparables does not give rise to a substantial question 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 do not raise substantial questions of law. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding comparable selection is insufficient.

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 present case was below 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 found no error in the Trial Court's sentencing, particularly the fine imposed, and therefore declined to enhance it. The Court also found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

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 and sought to withdraw it.

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present 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 below the revised monetary limit. 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 allowed the Revenue's appeal to be withdrawn. The court noted that the main appeal having been decided rendered the current appeal infructuous.

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

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, following 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 court did not answer the substantial questions of law.

The High Court held that the complainant failed to substantiate his financial status to advance the loan, thus rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The acquittal by the trial court was found to be a possible conclusion.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the appellant-Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular.

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw its appeal as it had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The High Court noted that the tax effect in the appeals was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeals.

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 upheld the conviction but modified the sentence. It set aside the simple imprisonment and the fine for state expenses, directing the petitioner to pay a specific sum as compensation to the complainant.

The High Court noted that the demand in question was set aside by the assessing authority itself. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute this fact.

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

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 sought to withdraw the appeal.

The High Court held that property exclusively belonging to a partner does not automatically become partnership property just by being used for business, unless there's an express or implied agreement. It also clarified that a deed evidencing a partner's interest in partnership assets does not require registration, even if the assets include immovable property.

The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, finding that the petitioner had sufficient business income and financial capacity to pay maintenance. The awarded maintenance amount was deemed appropriate considering the respondent's age and educational needs.

The High Court disposed of the appeal as withdrawn, in accordance with the CBDT circular. The court did not answer the substantial questions of law as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A do not lie for disputes regarding the selection of comparables or the application of filters, unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. It also noted that the issue regarding the exclusion of expenses from turnover is covered by Supreme Court decisions.

The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if the Tribunal's findings are not perverse. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings, such as the selection of comparables, does not give rise to a substantial question of law.

The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they merely challenge factual findings of the Tribunal regarding comparable selections. The Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd. was also cited regarding Section 10A deductions.

The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and filters for arriving at ALP do not raise substantial questions of law under Section 260-A. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.

The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing cases do not raise substantial questions of law unless there is ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.

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. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings regarding comparables does not give rise to a substantial question of law.

The High Court held that the issues regarding the selection of comparables and the treatment of forex gains/losses do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.