Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 3 of 26
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were covered by a previous judgment of the same court. Therefore, the questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, held that the territorial jurisdiction for the appeal vests with the Dharwad Bench. Consequently, the Registry was directed to transmit the appeal memorandum to the Dharwad Bench. For statistical purposes, the appeal was disposed of. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order dated December 19, 2017, as the appeal was disposed of on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. No finding was given on the substantive issues that might have been raised before the ITAT or were intended to be raised before the High Court.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru considered the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) dated 10.10.2018, seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted the leave as prayed for. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the original order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore, as the appeal itself was withdrawn by the Revenue. Therefore, no findings on the substantive issues that might have been raised before the ITAT are recorded.
The High Court, in view of the concession made by the Revenue's counsel, dismissed the appeal. The appeal was decided based on a prior ruling by the same court.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was covered by its previous judgment in the assessee's own case. This judgment was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The Tribunal correctly allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC, even though the report was filed at the first appellate stage and not with the original return. The Court followed a precedent that the audit report is not always mandatory with the initial return.
The Tribunal, following the precedent set in a related appeal, allowed the current appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding regarding non-compliance with Section 139(4) was perverse, as the reinvestment was made within the stipulated period. The Court followed a previous judgment which allowed reinvestment even if made after the initial due date.
The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the primary onus by providing confirmation letters, names, addresses, and ledger copies of trade creditors. The High Court agreed that the amounts were supported by entries for goods and services, upholding the lower authorities' decision.
The High Court held all four substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The decision was based on various Supreme Court and High Court judgments that covered the specific issues raised.
The High Court held that the tax holiday period under Section 10A is for the undertaking and any change in ownership does not alter or increase this period. The conditions for claiming the exemption must be met at the inception of the undertaking.
The High Court of Karnataka, upon hearing the submission from the appellant's counsel, noted that the appeal had become infructuous in view of a subsequent order passed by the same Court in connected appeals (ITA No.296 of 2010 and ITA No.38 of 2012), where the relief had been granted. Consequently, the Court accepted the submission made by the appellant's counsel. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as infructuous. No specific findings on the merits of the original ITAT order were made, as the appeal was decided on a procedural ground. The principle that can be cited is that an appeal can be disposed of as infructuous if subsequent events or related judgments have rendered the subject matter moot.
The High Court, following its earlier orders in connected appeals, held the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The Tribunal's decision to confirm the penalty was set aside. The High Court followed its own judgment in a similar case, holding that the penalty was not sustainable due to a defective notice under Section 274.
The Tribunal correctly allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC, even though the report was filed at the first appellate stage and not with the original return. The Court followed a precedent that the audit report is not always mandatory with the initial return.
The High Court agreed with the appellant and the respondent, deciding to remand the present appeal to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal's previous order was set aside.
The High Court found that the Revenue's contention regarding the second issue was not disputed. Therefore, the Tribunal was directed to re-consider the second issue afresh.
The High Court held that the first three substantial questions of law were covered by previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments. These questions were answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court followed its own judgment in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory. The levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable when the notice under Section 274 did not specify the grounds for initiation.
The High Court held that the tax holiday period under Section 10A is for the undertaking and any change in ownership does not alter or increase this period. The conditions for claiming the exemption must be met at the inception of the undertaking.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding the appeals not being maintainable due to monetary limits and a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding the appeals not being maintainable due to monetary limits and a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court held that writ petitions arising under the SARFAESI Act are not maintainable, citing Supreme Court directions. However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to reply to the notice within seven days.
The High Court held both substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The decision was based on previous judgments of the Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court.
The High Court held that all four substantial questions of law were covered by various Supreme Court and High Court judgments. These judgments were in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The High Court acknowledged the submission that the questions of law were covered by a precedent. Consequently, the Court ordered accordingly, implying acceptance of the submission.
The High Court found that the Tribunal's reliance on its previous decisions for the second issue was questionable. Therefore, the Court directed the Tribunal to re-consider the second issue afresh.
The High Court held that the authorities were not justified in passing orders without considering relevant material on record, specifically the report of the District Valuation Officer. This non-consideration vitiated the proceedings.
The Tribunal failed to adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction raised by the assessee and did not provide reasons for modifying the addition related to the KGF property. Therefore, the Tribunal's order was vitiated.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had allowed the appeal, rendering the writ petition infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
The High Court acknowledged the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Based on the precedent, the Court decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) regarding the monetary limits and the applicability of Circular No. 3 of 2018. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as such. The Court did not delve into the merits of the ITAT's order dated September 22, 2017. No specific ratio decidendi for future cases is evident, as the dismissal was procedural.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the submission made by the appellants regarding monetary limits and a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding the appeal not being maintainable due to monetary limits and a CBDT circular. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, with certain modifications. Several proceedings were quashed or abated, while others were dismissed or allowed in part.
The High Court, based on the submission of the Revenue's counsel, dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was in terms of a prior judgment of the court.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Petition. The reasoning was based on the procedural default by the petitioner. The order sheet showed that the petitioner had been granted sufficient time to take steps for serving notice to the respondent. Despite these opportunities, the petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements. Consequently, the court found no basis to proceed with the petition and dismissed it. The judgment does not address the merits of the transfer application or the underlying dissolution of marriage case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the dismissal was on procedural grounds.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court noted that the substantial question of law was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Based on this submission, the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant's counsel submitted that the substantial question of law was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court accepted the Revenue's submission that the questions of law were covered by existing judgments. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The appellants' counsel submitted that the substantial question of law was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Based on this submission, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court acknowledged the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Based on the precedent cited, the appeal was disposed of.
The High Court of Karnataka, based on the joint submission of both learned counsels for the appellant and the respondent, dismissed the appeal. The reason for dismissal was that the appeal had become infructuous. No findings were made on the merits of the case, and no substantive questions of law were decided. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as infructuous, without any further relief or direction to either party.
The High Court, based on the submission of the appellant's counsel, acknowledged that the substantial question of law was covered by a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. The appeal was accordingly disposed of based on this submission.
The High Court noted the submission of the Revenue's counsel that the substantial questions of law were covered by a previous judgment of the same court. The appeal was disposed of based on this submission.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not maintainable due to monetary limits and a CBDT circular. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.