Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 20 of 26
The High Court held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A benefits, citing Supreme Court precedent. Regarding transfer pricing, the court found no substantial question of law as the ITAT's findings on comparables were based on facts and functional dissimilarity.
The High Court held that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. It relied on a previous judgment stating that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless the Tribunal's finding is ex facie 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. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not typically constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the non-communication of reasons for reassessment is a jurisdictional issue, not a procedural lapse. Therefore, the reassessment order passed without supplying the reasons was without jurisdiction.
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 the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.
The High Court held that the ITAT was not justified in dismissing the appeal on delay without proof of service and in placing the burden of proof on the assessee to establish non-service.
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 also noted that the issue regarding deduction from total turnover under Section 10A was covered by Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal, as the issues primarily concern factual findings regarding the selection of comparable companies and transfer pricing adjustments. The court relied on its previous judgment in a similar case.
The High Court held that disputes regarding the selection of comparable companies and the application of filters in transfer pricing do not typically raise substantial questions of law. The court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment supporting the exclusion of expenses from both export and total turnover for a logical calculation.
The High Court held that the issue of excluding expenses from total turnover for Section 10A deduction is covered by Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also noted that disputes regarding the selection of comparable companies generally do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court noted that the assessee's argument raised a question of fact regarding the filing of an affidavit. Since this was a matter of record before the Tribunal, the High Court decided to relegate the assessee back to the Tribunal.
The High Court held that if there was a factual error in the Tribunal's order regarding the assessee's submissions, the assessee could move the Tribunal itself via a Miscellaneous Application for correction.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. It relied on Supreme Court and its own previous judgments to dismiss the appeal, stating that mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The learned counsel for the Revenue expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal. The assessee's counsel did not object to the withdrawal.
The High Court held that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law. The court dismissed the appeal, following its earlier decision that disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not warrant interference under Section 260-A.
The High Court found that the assessee's arguments primarily concerned questions of fact regarding whether an affidavit was filed before the ITAT. Since these were factual matters to be decided by the Tribunal, the High Court relegated the assessee back to the Tribunal.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee did not want to press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed. No substantial questions of law were decided on merits, and no reasoning was provided for any finding. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court modified the Family Court's order, directing the husband to pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses to the wife. The court also directed the Family Court to expedite the disposal of the main case.
The High Court held that the present appeal filed by the Revenue had become infructuous due to the dismissal of a related appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies and the application of filters in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law. It also noted that expenses excluded from export turnover should be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A calculations.
The High Court found the issue of reopening the assessment to be academic as the revenue had not appealed the Tribunal's order granting substantial relief to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for computing Section 10A deduction. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent and avoids an illogical result.
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. Dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are maintainable only for substantial questions of law. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not typically raise such substantial questions of law.
The High Court found the issue of reopening the assessment to be academic as the revenue had not appealed the tribunal's order granting relief. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
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 held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable in cases concerning the selection of comparables unless ex-facie perversity is established. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act do not lie for disputes concerning the selection of comparables or the classification of foreign exchange gains/losses as operating items, unless the Tribunal's finding is perverse.
The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, reducing the compensation amount. It recalculated the loss of dependency based on the deceased's income from IT returns and adjusted the interest rate.
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 disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and application of filters in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law. Such findings of the Tribunal are considered final unless ex-facie 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 regarding comparable companies does not qualify.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they do not 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 do not raise substantial questions of law. Merely disagreeing with the Tribunal's findings on facts, such as the selection of comparables, does not constitute 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 merely question the selection of comparables by the Tribunal, as this does not raise a substantial question of law. The court dismissed the appeal.
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. Dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court held that internal guidelines do not bind the approving authority to provide an opportunity of hearing, especially when the assessee had full opportunity before the assessing and appellate authorities. The court also found that the seized material and the assessee's own statement corroborated the additions made.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if they primarily concern factual findings regarding the selection of comparables. The court found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that the issues raised by the Revenue did not constitute substantial questions of law. The court relied on previous judgments affirming that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A deductions.
The High Court held that the second substantial question of law regarding the exclusion of expenses from export and total turnover was covered by previous Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The Court also found that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's decision on forex gain/loss.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the issues were covered by previous Supreme Court and High Court decisions, or did not meet the threshold for an appeal under Section 260-A.
The High Court held that the issue regarding telecommunication charges was covered by its earlier decision in Tata Elxsi Ltd., which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The court also noted that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable for disputes regarding the selection of comparables unless ex-facie perversity is established.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order regarding the exclusion of a comparable company in transfer pricing. The court found no perversity in the Tribunal's factual findings.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable for disputes concerning the selection of comparables unless ex-facie perversity is established. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal 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 comparable companies in transfer pricing do not typically constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the first substantial question of law was covered by existing precedents, and the Revenue did not press the remaining questions related to comparable selection. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies do not raise substantial questions of law. It affirmed that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's factual findings is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court of Karnataka, on 26th June 2018, considered the appeal filed by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue submitted a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The opposite 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 case or the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if the Tribunal's findings are not ex facie perverse. Issues regarding the selection of comparables and application of filters 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 do not raise substantial questions of law. Issues concerning the selection of comparables and adjustments are typically findings of fact.