Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 6 of 26
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A do not lie for disputes regarding the selection of comparables unless there is ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.
The High Court modified the Tribunal's award, reducing the compensation for 'loss of future income' but enhancing it for 'conveyance charges', 'loss of amenities', and 'pain and sufferings'. The total compensation awarded was reduced.
The High Court held that the 28 acres of land constituted 'assets' for wealth tax purposes, as they belonged to the assessees on the valuation dates. Protective assessments were also deemed valid, allowing the Assessing Authority to proceed with substantive assessments.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable if there is no ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the issue of carry forward of excess application of income by charitable trusts is covered by its previous judgments. These judgments affirmed that income of charitable trusts should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for carry forward of deficits.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. The court found that disputes regarding the selection of comparables or the most appropriate method do not give rise to substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost has been claimed as an application of income. This is based on established judicial precedents which allow for computation of income on commercial principles.
The High Court held that depreciation on assets, even if their entire cost was claimed as application of income, is allowable. This is based on established High Court and Supreme Court precedents which allow depreciation on commercial principles for charitable trusts.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are maintainable only if there is an ex-facie perversity in the Tribunal's findings. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings does not constitute a substantial question of law.
The High Court held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain the legislative intent of Section 10A. This ensures a logical and fair computation of profit from export business.
The tribunal found the mini bus driver negligent and awarded compensation. The High Court modified the compensation amount after recalculating income, future prospects, and deducting taxes.
The High Court held that the controversy regarding depreciation and carry forward of deficits for charitable trusts is settled by previous judgments of the same court. These judgments affirmed that depreciation is allowable on commercial principles and that deficits can be carried forward.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in annulling the reassessment proceedings without considering the Assessing Officer's reasons and the applicability of the proviso to Section 147. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order regarding the first substantial question of law (classification of computerization expenditure) and remitted it for fresh consideration. The other substantial questions of law were decided against the revenue.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, based on commercial principles. It also affirmed the carry forward of losses for set-off against current year income.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in the same terms as another related appeal (ITA No. 4/2015). The specific findings of the High Court on the substantial questions of law are not detailed in this excerpt, but the disposal implies a decision on these points.
The High Court disposed of the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the case falls under the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular.
The High Court found that the accused failed to prove repayment of the loan and that their defense of the cheques being issued as security was false. The trial court's findings were deemed perverse and contrary to the evidence.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It also upheld the carry forward of excess application of income based on prior judgments.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and the application of RPT filters do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain the legislative intent and avoid an illogical result. The court found no substantial question of law arising.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, as the issues were covered by previous judgments of the Court. These judgments affirmed the allowability of depreciation and carry forward of deficits for charitable trusts based on commercial principles.
The High Court held that expenses deducted from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid an illogical and unjust result. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent and common parlance.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies in transfer pricing cases do not ordinarily raise substantial questions of law. Mere dissatisfaction with the factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. The Supreme Court had ruled that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid an illogical result and ensure the formula for Section 10A deductions is workable.
The High Court held that the 28 acres of land constituted 'assets' for wealth tax purposes, as they belonged to the assessees on the valuation dates. Protective assessments were also deemed valid, allowing the Assessing Authority to proceed with substantive assessments.
The High Court held that the 28 acres of land constituted 'assets' for wealth tax purposes, as they belonged to the assessees on the valuation dates. Protective assessments were also deemed valid, allowing the Assessing Authority to proceed with substantive assessments.
The Tribunal held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover. This interpretation aligns with the ordinary meaning and legislative intent of Section 10A.
The High Court held that the issue of carrying forward losses for set off against income of a charitable trust is covered by its previous judgments. These judgments affirmed that income of a trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for adjustment of earlier year expenses against subsequent income.
The High Court held that disputes regarding the selection of comparables and the extent of adjustments for working capital do not raise substantial questions of law. Therefore, appeals on such matters are not maintainable under Section 260-A.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act do not lie for disputes concerning the selection of comparables or the application of filters in transfer pricing. Such matters do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and application of filters in transfer pricing cases do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in this case. Following the Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd., expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for the formula under Section 10B to be logical and workable.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies for transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law, unless there is ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court found the negligence of the car driver to be established. However, it modified the compensation amount, increasing some heads and reducing the interest rate, while also allowing the appeal in part.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable in cases where the ITAT's findings regarding comparables are based on factual analysis, unless there is ex-facie perversity. The court found no substantial question of law in the present appeal.
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, as this does not raise a substantial question of law. The Court found no ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings.
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. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable if they do not raise substantial questions of law. Appeals concerning the selection of comparables or application of filters do not, in themselves, constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act do not lie merely on dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal regarding comparability. Unless ex-facie perversity is established, such appeals are not maintainable.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing cases do not raise substantial questions of law unless there is ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable if no substantial question of law arises. The court found that disputes regarding the selection of comparables in transfer pricing matters do not constitute substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies do not raise substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the issue regarding set-off of losses was settled by the Supreme Court. For the transfer pricing issue, the court referred to its previous judgment stating that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity is established.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and application of filters in transfer pricing do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that while cash transactions violating Section 269 SS may be independent criminal offenses, they do not invalidate a prosecution for dishonor of a cheque under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court stated that such contentions could be decided during the trial.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue do not give rise to any substantial question of law. It reiterated that mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient to invoke Section 260-A.
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 under Section 260-A. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.
The High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to consider the petitioner's application for compounding the offence in accordance with law. Appropriate orders are to be passed within four weeks.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable for issues concerning the selection of comparables or the application of filters, unless there is an ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.