Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 7 of 26
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 allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn based on the revised monetary limits specified in the CBDT circular.
The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, citing the availability of alternative statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act. The court noted that the petitioner had not utilized the liberty granted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and had also failed to adhere to a subsequent undertaking to hand over possession.
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. The selection of comparable companies does not constitute a substantial question of law.
The High Court held that the issues raised by the Revenue, particularly concerning the selection of comparables, do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable under Section 260-A of the Act.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient.
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. Issues concerning the selection of comparables or adjustments do not give rise to substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not typically raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid illogical results and ensure the formula for Section 10A deduction is workable. The Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd. was cited as precedent.
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 unless there is ex-facie perversity.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act do not lie for issues concerning the selection of comparables or the application of filters, as these do not constitute substantial questions of law unless there is ex-facie perversity.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the IT Act are not maintainable if they merely challenge factual findings of the Tribunal regarding comparable companies and filters, unless ex-facie perversity is established. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they merely challenge the Tribunal's findings on comparables without establishing ex-facie perversity. Such issues do not give rise to substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables for transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law. It also noted that the issue regarding Section 10A computation was covered by a Supreme Court decision.
The High Court held that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act regarding the cheque being issued for a debt or liability. The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was modified.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable for issues concerning the selection of comparable companies unless there is ex-facie perversity. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's findings of fact is insufficient.
The High Court held that the issues raised were covered by previous decisions of the court. Therefore, no substantial questions of law arose for further consideration.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants-Revenue had filed a memo seeking leave of the court to withdraw the appeal. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. The operative direction was to send a copy of the order to the respondent-Assessee forthwith.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law under Section 260-A. The court also noted that the issue regarding Section 10A deduction was covered by a Supreme Court decision.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Act are not maintainable unless there is an ex-facie perversity in the Tribunal's findings. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient to raise a substantial question of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if they merely challenge the Tribunal's findings on comparable selection or filter application, as these do not raise substantial questions of law. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies and application of filters do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue are devoid of merit.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. It granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue their grievance in accordance with law, but clarified that this does not allow reopening a previous complaint.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings is insufficient.
The High Court modified the Trial Court's order, allowing the petitioner to adopt the written statement of defendant No.6 on payment of costs. However, she was restricted from seeking new issues or recalling witnesses, and could only lead her own evidence.
The High Court held that the issue regarding exclusion of expenses from turnover for Section 10A deduction is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in HCL Technologies Ltd. The court also noted that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and filters do not raise substantial questions of law.
The learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) sought permission to withdraw the present appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the provisions relating to set-off of losses and carry forward of losses are applicable to charitable trusts. The court relied on its previous decisions and Supreme Court pronouncements regarding the computation of income for trusts on commercial principles.
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, such appeals are not maintainable under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable if no substantial question of law arises, particularly concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing. Mere dissatisfaction with factual findings of the Tribunal is insufficient.
The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit 5% of the disputed demand within two weeks. The Court also urged the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables 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 are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the Tribunal's findings is established. Appeals concerning the selection of comparables or adjustments like working capital do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the Tribunal's findings is established. The Court found that the present appeal did not raise any substantial question of law.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables for transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law unless there is ex-facie perversity. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the order taking cognizance was not in compliance with the law, specifically Section 191(1)(a) and Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. The court found that the Magistrate did not apply judicious mind to the facts and law before taking cognizance.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. The court found no substantial question of law in the present case.
The High Court held that expenditure excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid an illogical and unjust result. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of the formula under Section 10A.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless there is an ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings. Issues regarding the selection of comparables do not give rise to substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in this case. It agreed with the ITAT's decision, which was consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in HCL Technologies Ltd., regarding the exclusion of expenses from total turnover.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in this case, following its previous judgment in a similar matter. The court found that disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not typically give rise to substantial questions of law under Section 260-A.
The High Court held that the husband failed to prove he transferred money to his wife for the purchase of the properties. The wife's income tax returns indicated she had independent sources of income to purchase the properties. The suit was also found to be defective for not impleading subsequent purchasers.
The High Court noted that the tax effect in the present case was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue did not press the appeal.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act are not maintainable unless an ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. The court found that the questions raised by the Revenue regarding the selection of comparables did not constitute substantial questions of law.
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. Disputes regarding the selection of comparables do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that appeals under Section 260-A are not maintainable unless ex-facie perversity in the ITAT's findings is established. It found that disputes regarding the selection of comparables or adjustments do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that the carry forward of deficits for set off against current year's income is permissible for educational trusts, aligning with commercial principles and judicial precedents. The court found that depreciation can be considered a legitimate deduction for computing the real income of a trust.
The High Court held that provisions relating to set-off of losses and depreciation are applicable to charitable trusts. Depreciation is allowable even if the asset cost was claimed as application of income, as it's a commercial principle for computing real income.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, and that carry forward of deficits for set-off is permissible based on commercial principles and relevant case law. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were deemed not to arise.