Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 23 of 26
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 held that the bank's belief in claiming exemption for overseas travel with a domestic leg was without legal basis. Consequently, the authorities were justified in holding the assessee as an 'assessee in default'.
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 an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the potential hardship to the assessee due to a high-pitched assessment. The court modified the impugned order to allow for a partial deposit and furnishing of security for the remaining demand.
The High Court held that the writ appeal was not maintainable as there was no provision for an appeal against the impugned order. The court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs on the appellant for filing a non-maintainable appeal.
The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's order. It noted that the husband had not approached the court with clean hands and that the maintenance awarded was reasonable given the wife's responsibility to care for the child.
The Court granted four weeks' time to comply with office objections. Failure to do so would result in the petitions being dismissed without reference to the Bench.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No findings were made on the merits of the case, and no specific issues were decided. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that diplomatic immunity cannot be claimed for business activities conducted in consular premises. The appeal was disposed of as infructuous after the appellant appeared and concluded his statement.
The High Court noted that the interim order of the Tribunal had merged with subsequent orders passed by the High Court itself, which modified the deposit requirements. Therefore, the present petition was rendered infructuous.
The court held that Section 200A of the Act, as amended effective June 1, 2015, has prospective effect. Therefore, demands for fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, made under Section 200A, were without authority of law.
The High Court found that the return was wrongly declared invalid and the application for condonation was rejected improperly. The Court directed the Income Tax Officer to scrutinize the return and pass appropriate orders, subject to the petitioner not raising objections regarding limitation for assessment proceedings.
The Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representations regarding the filed returns and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. The Court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the issues raised in the appeal were already covered by existing judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the guilt of the accused. However, considering the accused is a lady, the sentence of imprisonment was reduced.
The High Court held that the plaintiff could not enforce two separate agreements for the same property and that the plaintiff's delay in seeking performance and inconsistent claims regarding payment rendered the suit unsustainable. The First Appellate Court's decision to decree the suit was deemed perverse.
The Tribunal held that processing iron ore in a plant outside the bonded area does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 10B, as long as the raw material and finished product belong to the assessee and are exported. Customs bonding is not a prerequisite for claiming this deduction.
The High Court permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per the memo filed, in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.
The tribunal held that the petitioner's claim of being an indigent person was unacceptable due to evidence of financial assistance from family, shareholding, and his son living abroad. The failure to produce bank statements and income tax returns also led to an adverse inference.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for registration under Section 12A prior to the amendment by the Finance Act (No.2), 1996, and that there was no mandatory requirement for registration to claim exemption before April 1, 1997. The High Court upheld this.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for registration under Section 12A prior to the amendment by the Finance Act (No.2), 1996, and that there was no mandatory requirement for registration to claim exemption before April 1, 1997. The High Court upheld this.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for registration under Section 12A prior to the amendment by the Finance Act (No.2), 1996, and that there was no mandatory requirement for registration to claim exemption before April 1, 1997. The High Court upheld this.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in notionally assessing the income but failed to add future prospects and correctly calculate consortium and other heads. The compensation was enhanced.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for registration under Section 12A prior to the amendment by the Finance Act (No.2), 1996, and that there was no mandatory requirement for registration to claim exemption before April 1, 1997. The High Court upheld this.
The High Court quashed the Principal CIT's non-speaking order, the CIT(A)'s communication declining jurisdiction, and the garnishee notice. The matter was remitted to the Principal CIT to reconsider the stay application and pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner, considering factors like high-pitched assessment and genuine hardship.
The tribunal held that the Joint Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in revising an order that had ceased to be operative. The subsequent notice for reassessment proceedings rendered the earlier order non-existent for revision purposes.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable because the tax effect involved was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case, finding the demand for market value of 10% of the plot area towards Park and Open Space Development Charges to be unsustainable.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court quashed the interim orders as they were passed without proper application of mind and without considering the guidelines in CBDT Circular No. 1914. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration of the stay application.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were found to be impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The Tribunal held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover when computing the deduction under Section 10A. This aligns with the principle of uniformity in the numerator and denominator of the formula.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal, finding the complainant's evidence inconsistent and unreliable regarding the loan amount, its source, and the mode of payment. The accused successfully rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned demand notices. The court followed its previous order in a similar case where such charges were deemed impermissible.
The High Court held that the delay of 1232 days should be condoned, interpreting 'genuine hardship' liberally. The court emphasized rendering substantial justice over hyper-technicalities, allowing the assessing officer to scrutinize the returns.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.