Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2019

The tribunal held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is applicable only to offences relatable to recommendations or decisions made in the discharge of official duties. Since the charges against the petitioners were for disproportionate assets, Section 17A was not applicable.

The tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 153A, even if it mentions Section 153C in its body, would not invalidate the assessment, especially when the assessee responded to it and did not claim prejudice. Section 292B of the Act was invoked to cure any defects in the notice.

The tribunal held that the revisional authority's power under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act was wrongly invoked as it failed to record that the appellate order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellant.

The High Court held that the presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted. The complainant failed to establish financial capacity and the date of loan advancement, while the accused raised a probable defense.

The High Court held that the Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income was on the lower side and that compensation for loss of future prospects and consortium was not adequately awarded. The court enhanced the compensation amount.

The High Court set aside the orders of the ITAT and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was given one more opportunity to present their arguments.

The Court held that there was no legal impediment for the CBDT to reconsider the application for retrospective exemption, as the nature of the Board remained the same. The CBDT was directed to re-consider the application and pass a speaking order.

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations regarding the pending fees within four months. The respondents were also permitted to seek additional documents from the petitioner if required.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court placed the said memo on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. All pending applications were also consigned to records. The judgment does not provide any reasoning on the merits of the original appeal or the miscellaneous petition that was dismissed by the ITAT. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Clause (i) of Section 92BA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, effective from 01.04.2017, and thus proceedings under it would lapse. The High Court affirmed this, citing Supreme Court precedents on the effect of statutory omissions.

The High Court found the issue of reopening the assessment to be academic as the revenue had not appealed the tribunal's order granting relief. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court found the issue of reopening the assessment to be academic as the revenue had not appealed the ITAT's order granting relief. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to revive if the revenue files an appeal.

The High Court held that it lacked the necessary jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the ITAT's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The High Court dismissed all the writ appeals as withdrawn. This decision was based on memos filed by the parties in all the appeals.

The High Court held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a non-existing company due to amalgamation is a substantive illegality and not a curable procedural defect. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

The court held that the proceedings under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, are not mere re-assessment proceedings and that the petitioner's argument regarding the necessity of a prior assessment order is misconceived. The court also noted that jurisdictional objections should be raised at the earliest opportunity.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping the grounds urged open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and the grounds urged by both parties were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court noted that the revenue did not dispute the withdrawal of the department's earlier appeals.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping the grounds urged open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds raised were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court held that the wife's temporary employment was due to compelling circumstances to support herself and her daughter, and did not disentitle her from maintenance. The husband's income was significantly higher, making him financially viable.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion on the merits of the case or the contentions of either party was being expressed.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The grounds urged by both parties were kept open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all contentions were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, keeping the grounds urged open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion on the merits of the case or the contentions of either party would be expressed. The grounds urged in the appeal were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The contentions of both parties were kept open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court held that the insurer failed to provide evidence to substantiate claims of contributory negligence. The court also found that even with a higher income calculation and additional compensation heads, the award would not exceed the Tribunal's figure.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion on the merits of the case would be expressed, and all grounds raised were kept open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court held that the petitioner failed to lead any rebuttal evidence to disprove the complainant's case. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had considered the evidence and accepted the complainant's case.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, keeping the grounds urged open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court held that the introduction of Chapter XII-H and the levy of FBT were within Parliament's legislative competence and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found no grounds to interfere with the provisions.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all contentions were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds urged were kept open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court made no observation on the merits of the case, keeping the contentions of both parties open for future adjudication if necessary.

The tribunal held that input tax credit can only be claimed in the prescribed manner, which includes filing returns under Section 35. An audited statement like Form VAT 240 cannot substitute for the mandatory claim in the returns.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and the contentions of both parties were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion on the merits of the case or the contentions of either party would be expressed, and all grounds would be kept open for future adjudication if necessary.

The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw their appeal. The court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds raised were kept open for future adjudication.