Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 22 of 26
The High Court held that the observations made by the ITAT in paragraph 26 would depend on the findings of the Assessing Officer after the remand. Therefore, the court left the substantial question of law open for consideration after the fresh inquiry.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the interlocutory stay order have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the interlocutory stay order have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the interlocutory stay order have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the interlocutory stay order have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the interlocutory stay order have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the interlocutory stay order have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The High Court held that supplies made from one STP unit to another STP unit, which are then exported and earn foreign exchange, should be treated as 'deemed export' for the purpose of Section 10A. Expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid illogical results.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue arising from the interlocutory stay order have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue against the interlocutory orders have become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals are disposed of as such.
The tribunal held that summoning these official witnesses was unnecessary for the plaintiff to discharge his initial burden of proving the firm was joint family property. The trial court was justified in dismissing the applications.
The High Court found the trial court's acquittal to be perverse and erroneous, stating it failed to consider the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The court held that the accused had not successfully rebutted the presumption.
The High Court directed the bank to de-freeze the petitioner's account on the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bond for the excess amount received from the financial establishment. This was to balance the interests of investors and the investigation.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions and decisions of the Bombay High Court. It found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order.
The High Court allowed the appeal in terms of its previous judgment in I.T.A. No. 100040/2017 dated 19.02.2018. This previous judgment had disposed of the appeal by referring to another judgment in I.T.A. No. 100039/2017 dated 29.01.2018, as the issue involved was the same. Therefore, the present appeal is also disposed of in the same manner as the cited appeals. The specific findings or reasoning from the previous judgments are not detailed in this order, but the operative direction is to follow the precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The auction held pursuant to the sale notice did not receive any bids, rendering the notice infructuous. The court dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to challenge any fresh sale notice.
The High Court held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities. The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the petitioner's age and the reasons provided.
The High Court held that 'deemed exports' made through a third party are eligible for deduction under Section 10B, as the intention is to encourage exports and fetch foreign currency. The court found no restrictive wording in the Act to exclude such deemed exports.
The High Court held that CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, is applicable to pending proceedings. Therefore, the present appeal was dismissed on the same grounds as the earlier appeal.
The High Court held that 'deemed exports' made through a third party are eligible for deduction under Section 10B, as the intention is to encourage exports and fetch foreign currency. The court found no restrictive wording in the Act to exclude such deemed exports.
The High Court held that 'deemed exports' made through a third party are eligible for deduction under Section 10B, as the intention is to encourage exports and fetch foreign currency. The court found no restrictive wording in the Act to exclude such deemed exports.
The High Court held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the expenditure computed under Rule 8D. The Court noted that previous High Court judgments supported this view.
The High Court held that 'deemed exports' made through a third party are eligible for deduction under Section 10B, as the intention is to encourage exports and fetch foreign currency. The court found no restrictive wording in the Act to exclude such deemed exports.
The High Court held that the authorities below failed to consider crucial material facts, including the Tribunal's order granting exemption and this Court's confirmation. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication on the issue of interest payable on the refund.
The High Court held that the authorities below failed to consider crucial material facts, including the Tribunal's order granting exemption and this Court's confirmation. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication on the issue of interest payable on the refund.
The High Court held that the authorities below failed to consider crucial material facts, including the Tribunal's order granting exemption and this Court's confirmation. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication on the issue of interest payable on the refund.
The High Court held that the authorities below failed to consider crucial material facts, including the Tribunal's order granting exemption and this Court's confirmation. The matter was remanded for re-adjudication on the issue of interest payable on the refund.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants had filed a memo for withdrawing the appeal. The memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case, and therefore, no specific findings or reasoning were provided by the court regarding the substantive issues that might have been raised in the appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants (the revenue) filed a memo for withdrawing the appeal. The High Court took the memo on record and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or any substantial questions of law. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was disposed of procedurally.
The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) filed a memo for withdrawing the appeal. The memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The judgment does not record any specific findings or reasoning on the substantive issues that might have been before the Tribunal or the lower appellate authorities.
The High Court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the applications. The petitioner had already been shown leniency in recalling the witness, and successive applications for the same relief were not permissible. The court also found that the requested Income Tax notice was not relevant to proving the validity of a Will.
The High Court found that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court quashed the order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following the CBDT circular which instructs to withdraw appeals where the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit.
The Tribunal's award for medical expenses was reduced due to duplication. The compensation for loss of future income was increased based on a higher monthly income. The contention of duplication of claim for the previous injury was not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising revisional powers under Section 263 of the Act. The High Court agreed, stating that the revisional authority cannot interfere with orders passed by the Appellate Commissioner due to the doctrine of merger.
The tribunal held that the suppression of purchases was an admitted fact and the appellate authority erred in setting aside the original assessment order. The revisional authority was justified in exercising its powers.
The High Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as statutory remedies, including appeals to the Appellate Tribunal, were available. The court also noted that the petitioners had not exhausted these remedies.
The High Court held that for uniformity in the calculation of deduction under Section 10-A, expenses excluded from the numerator (export profit) must also be excluded from the denominator (total turnover). This ensures consistency and avoids anomalies.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has the power to re-determine the income under Section 8 of the State Act, as only 75% of the income was considered for assessment. The assessee's argument that the Central Officer's computation must be accepted was rejected.
The High Court upheld the Family Court's order, stating that the husband cannot dictate the wife's mode of travel and must bear the 'requisite expenditure'. The court rejected the argument that a housewife is 'free' to travel by train.
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The court directed the Appellate Authority to re-frame the assessment after complying with principles of natural justice, including providing statements of third parties and an opportunity for cross-examination.
The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective because it failed to specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, as these are distinct grounds. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The court directed the Assessing Officer to provide the petitioners with copies of statements and investigation reports and to allow cross-examination of witnesses.
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The court directed the Assessing Officer to provide copies of statements of third parties and investigation reports to the petitioners and allow them to cross-examine the witnesses.
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The court directed the Assessing Officer to provide the petitioners with copies of statements and investigation reports and grant an opportunity for cross-examination.
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The court directed the Assessing Authority to provide the petitioners with copies of statements and investigation reports and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The Appellate Authority was directed to re-frame the assessment after complying with principles of natural justice, including providing statements and allowing cross-examination.
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The court directed the Appellate Authority to re-frame the assessment after complying with principles of natural justice, including providing statements of third parties and an opportunity for cross-examination.
The High Court held that passing an assessment order without disposing of objections filed pursuant to a Section 148 notice is untenable. Consequently, the impugned assessment order and demand notice were set aside.
The High Court quashed the impugned assessment orders and demand notices. The court directed the Assessing Officer to provide the petitioners with copies of statements and investigation reports and to allow cross-examination of witnesses.