Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 24 of 26
The Court directed the petitioner to pursue their stay application before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority was asked to consider the application expeditiously, and no precipitative action was to be taken during its pendency.
The tribunal modified the order of the Controlling Authority, directing the employer to pay the workman the remaining gratuity after deducting the tax amount remitted to the Income Tax department. Liberty was granted to the workman to approach the Income Tax department for any refund.
The tribunal found that the petitioner had already paid a significant portion of the amount as a guarantor for the employee's loan, which was not disclosed to the Controlling Authority. Therefore, the order to pay the full gratuity difference was set aside.
The High Court upheld the Family Court's order, finding that the wife's need for accommodation was justified due to her professional status and desire for independence. The court also noted the husband's failure to deny allegations about his substantial income.
The High Court held that the co-operative bank was not required to deduct tax at source on interest paid to its members on time deposits made before June 1, 2015. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 19/2015 and previous High Court judgments.
The High Court affirmed the ITAT's decision, following a previous judgment. It held that the omission of Section 10B(9) without a saving clause meant the section was to be considered as if it never existed, thus allowing the deduction.
The High Court found that the objections filed by the petitioner were not disposed of before the assessment order was passed. Following a previous Division Bench judgment, the Court set aside the impugned assessment order and demand notice.
The Tribunal, following a High Court judgment, held that expenses deducted from export turnover must also be deducted from total turnover when computing Section 10A deduction to maintain uniformity.
The High Court of Karnataka observed that the writ petitions pertained to the jurisdiction of the Dharwad Bench. Consequently, the Registry was directed to transfer the files to the Dharwad Bench.
The Court noted that the petitioners had filed memos seeking leave to withdraw the writ petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn.
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's plea for an extension to file objections. The respondents were not required to be heard on this specific issue.
The High Court modified the maintenance award, increasing it for the wife and daughter, while dismissing the husband's plea for reduction. The court emphasized the husband's obligation to maintain his family based on his means.
The High Court held that the petitioners could not circumvent the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act by invoking writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable.
The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned notices. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent, who would then consider the matter in accordance with law.
The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned notices. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent, who would then consider the matter in accordance with law.
The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned notices. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent, who would then consider the matter in accordance with law.
The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned notices. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent, who would then consider the matter in accordance with law.
The tribunal held that the power of attorney terminated upon the owner's death, rendering the subsequent sale deed invalid. The respondent's consistent title documents and revenue records established their possession.
The tribunal held that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is part of the enhanced compensation and not merely interest for delayed payment. Therefore, TDS deduction on such interest is not permissible.
The tribunal held that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is part of the enhanced compensation and not merely interest for delayed payment. Therefore, TDS deduction on such interest is not permissible.
The tribunal held that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is part of the enhanced compensation and not merely interest for delayed payment. Therefore, TDS deduction on such interest is not permissible.
The Tribunal correctly held that expenditure excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10-A computation. This is because the components of export turnover in the numerator and denominator cannot be different.
The Tribunal correctly dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the decision that expenses excluded from export turnover should also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10-A calculations.
The High Court held that the question of law framed by the Revenue did not arise as the matter was concluded by their earlier decision in Canfin Homes Ltd. The court reiterated that income from NPAs should be assessed on a cash basis, not mercantile, as NPAs are assumed not to yield revenue.
The High Court held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10-A calculations, following its prior ruling in Tata Elxsi Ltd. The court found no substantial question of law involved.
The tribunal held that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is part of the enhanced compensation and not merely interest for delayed payment. Therefore, TDS deduction on such interest is not permissible.
The High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court took the memo on record. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the intimation notice or the underlying tax dispute. The principle that can be cited is that a party has the right to withdraw their case, and the court will typically grant such a request, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings without prejudice to any future action.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order. It clarified that the order did not override the President's power to constitute Benches but ensured the appeals were heard expeditiously by the Bengaluru Bench.
The High Court held that income from NPAs should be assessed on a cash basis, not on a mercantile basis, even if the assessee follows a mercantile system of accounting. An NPA is assumed not to yield revenue, thus tax on notional income is unwarranted.
The High Court permitted the appellants (Revenue) to withdraw their appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court permitted the appellants (Revenue) to withdraw their appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal correctly followed the High Court's precedent in Tata Elxsi Ltd., holding that expenses deducted from export turnover must also be deducted from total turnover for Section 10-A calculations.
The Tribunal correctly allowed expenses reduced from export turnover to also be reduced from total turnover for Section 10-A computation, following established High Court precedent.
The tribunal held that the department cannot shift the burden of producing Mr. Choksi for cross-examination onto the assessee. If the department relies on Mr. Choksi's statement, it must provide an opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine him.
The High Court held that the issue of manufacturing activity had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court in previous cases. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's order regarding interim maintenance. The awarded amount was deemed neither excessive nor abysmally low, considering the parties' qualifications and financial circumstances.
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the assessee had an alternative, efficacious, and regular remedy of appeal under the Act. The petitioner was permitted to file a regular appeal within 30 days, which would be entertained without objection on limitation.
The High Court found that the Tribunal shifted the focus to Section 80P(4) without giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that the Tribunal was correct in its decision. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the issues were covered by its previous decisions, answering the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Principal Commissioner was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay as the time limit for payment under the IDS scheme could not be extended. However, it directed the authorities to consider refund or adjustment of the amount already deposited by the petitioner.
The High Court held that the assessee has an effective alternate remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
The High Court held that when an asset becomes non-performing, it ceases to yield income, and therefore, no tax would arise on such assets. The substantial question of law was answered against the Revenue.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the case fell under any exception to this circular.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in not properly considering the applicability of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and in mixing up issues related to Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d). The computation of income by the Assessing Officer was also found to be unsustainable.
The High Court held that for Section 194J to apply, there must be 'income comprised therein'. Reimbursement of expenses on a cost-to-cost basis does not constitute income. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS.
The High Court held that for Section 194J to apply, there must be 'income comprised therein'. Reimbursement of expenses on a cost-to-cost basis does not constitute income. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS.
The High Court held that for Section 194J to apply, there must be 'income comprised therein'. Reimbursement of expenses on a cost-to-cost basis does not constitute income. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS.
The High Court held that for Section 194J to apply, there must be 'income comprised therein'. Reimbursement of expenses on a cost-to-cost basis does not constitute income. Therefore, the assessee was not in default for not deducting TDS.
The Tribunal failed to appreciate the factual matrix and terms of the lease deed, wrongly treating lease rentals as capital expenditure. The High Court set aside the ITAT's order.