Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 19 of 26
The Tribunal noted that the learned counsel for the Appellants-Revenue had filed a Memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Assessee had no objection to this request. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A 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 held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. The court found no substantial question of law in this case.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable if they merely question the selection of comparables without establishing ex-facie perversity. Such issues do not give rise to 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 selection of comparables or the application of filters, unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse. The Court found no substantial question of law in this case.
The High Court held that the issues regarding the selection of comparable companies in transfer pricing and the computation of Section 10A deduction do not give rise to substantial questions of law. The court affirmed that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, primarily by reassessing the disability percentage and adding compensation for loss of amenities. The court found the Tribunal's assessment of disability to be too low.
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. Dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's factual findings is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the Revenue liberty to file a miscellaneous application before the ITAT within 30 days and requested the ITAT to consider it on merits.
The High Court held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A computation. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and avoids an absurd result.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order. The court relied on previous judgments stating that disputes over comparable selection or filters do not constitute substantial questions of law under Section 260-A.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's decision regarding the treatment of forex gain/loss. The Revenue did not press the second substantial question of law concerning Section 10A.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Issues concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's rejection of confirmations was not justified without proper inquiry and confrontation. The Tribunal's decision to uphold additions was found to be perverse.
The High Court modified the maintenance amount, bifurcating it based on the date of amendment of the wife's prayer. The court upheld the Family Court's decision regarding rent and litigation expenses.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act do not lie for disputes regarding the selection of comparables unless there is ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.
The High Court held that appeals raising questions about the selection of comparables or the application of filters for comparables do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The High Court held that the issue of Section 10A re-computation is covered by previous judgments, including a Supreme Court decision. Regarding transfer pricing, the court found no substantial question of law, citing a prior ruling that such appeals are not maintainable without ex-facie perversity.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing cases do not raise substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are maintainable only if substantial questions of law arise. It found that disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not typically constitute substantial questions of law unless the Tribunal's findings are perverse.
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 allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. It granted the Revenue liberty to file a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal within 30 days and expected the Tribunal to consider it on merits.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable unless there is an ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that expenses deducted from export turnover must also be deducted from total turnover, citing Supreme Court precedent. Regarding transfer pricing, the court found no substantial question of law, as the ITAT's findings on comparables and adjustments were based on factual analysis.
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 unless there is ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient.
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. Issues regarding the selection of comparables or disallowances based on factual findings of the Tribunal 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 unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, reserving liberty for the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Appellate Authority. The court noted that the petitioner was already before the appellate authority and should raise their arguments there.
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 court found that the issues regarding comparable companies and foreign exchange gains did not constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the review petition was not maintainable as it was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. The court noted that liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if they succeeded in their SLP before the Apex Court.
The High Court held that disputes regarding the selection of comparable companies and the application of filters do not constitute substantial questions of law under Section 260-A. 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 merely question the Tribunal's findings on comparables, unless the finding is perverse. The court found no substantial question of law arose in this case.
The High Court held that the issue regarding the deduction of expenses from both export turnover and total turnover for Section 10A calculation is settled by Supreme Court decisions. Regarding comparables, the court found that appeals on such factual matrix do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless there is an ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings. 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 of the Income Tax Act do not lie for disputes regarding the selection of comparables or the application of filters in transfer pricing cases, unless there is ex-facie perversity.
The High Court held that the lower courts erred in convicting the accused as the complainant failed to establish his financial capacity to lend such a huge amount. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act was rebutted due to the lack of evidence regarding the complainant's financial capacity and the nature of the transaction.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act do not lie merely due to dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal regarding comparable selection. Such appeals are not maintainable unless an ex-facie perversity is established.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are maintainable only if they raise substantial questions of law. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not constitute substantial questions of law unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they merely question the selection of comparables or the application of filters, as these do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they merely question the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the selection of comparables, unless such findings are perverse. The court found no substantial question of law in this case.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they merely question the selection of comparables, unless ex-facie perversity is established. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the issue regarding deduction under Section 10A was covered by Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It also noted that appeals on comparability issues do not raise 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 selection of comparables for ALP determination, unless there is ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings.
The High Court held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A calculations, citing Supreme Court precedent. Regarding transfer pricing, the court found no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's decision on comparables.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables for transfer pricing adjustments do not raise substantial questions of law. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a review application before the Tribunal. In view of this development, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeals filed before the High Court.
The appellant's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeals. The Court took the memo on record and accordingly dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court held that expenses deducted from export turnover must also be deducted from total turnover for Section 10A benefits, citing Supreme Court precedent. Regarding transfer pricing, the court found that disputes over comparable companies do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act do not lie for disputes regarding the selection of comparables unless there is ex-facie perversity. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.