Loading High Court cases…
327 orders · Page 2 of 7
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 their 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 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 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 grounds urged by both parties were kept 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 contentions 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.
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 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 if necessary.
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. 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 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 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 in the appeal 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 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 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 the appeal. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication.
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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 expressed no 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 if necessary.
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 contentions and grounds were 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 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 the grounds urged were kept open for future adjudication.
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 was being expressed on the merits of the case, and all 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 the grounds urged 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 the parties would be expressed, and all grounds were kept open for future adjudication if necessary.
The High Court held that the information received regarding the property sale necessitated the reopening of assessment. Symbolic possession transferred under an earlier agreement of sale did not amount to physical possession, and the matter was rightly remanded for adjudication.
The High Court held that the reassessment was barred by limitation under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, as the original assessment was made under Section 143(3) and more than four years had passed without the assessee failing to disclose material facts.
The High Court held that since the matter was already seized by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, it was appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the DRT to proceed with the case on merits. The DRT was directed to decide the matter within 15 days.