Loading High Court cases…
327 orders · Page 3 of 7
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 directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, within twelve weeks. The penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB was kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal.
The High Court found that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner and no show cause notice under Section 144 was issued. The impugned order was treated as a show cause notice, and the demand notice under Section 156 was set aside.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the miscellaneous petition and quashed the ITAT's order dismissing it. The matter was remanded to the ITAT for reconsideration on merits.
The High Court held that since the impugned order was appealable under Section 106(1)(h) of the Act, it would not ordinarily interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioners were granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal.
The High Court, in view of the order passed in connected appeals (I.T.A. No.5005/2012 and I.T.A. No.5006/2012), has quashed the order of assessment dated September 9, 2011. Consequently, the appeals before the High Court have been disposed of. The reasoning for quashing the assessment order is not provided in this judgment, as it relies on the decision in the aforementioned related appeals. No specific findings on the merits of the case or the issues that might have been before the ITAT are recorded. The operative direction is to quash the assessment order and dispose of the appeals.
The High Court allowed the appeal to be withdrawn by the revenue. The learned counsel for the revenue informed the Court that they sought to withdraw the appeal in view of a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made by the High Court. The specific content of the CBDT Circular or the underlying substantive issues of the appeal were not discussed or decided.
The High Court allowed the learned counsel for the Revenue to withdraw the appeal in view of a Circular issued by the Central Board of Taxes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that the Revenue initially sought to formulate. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal itself was disposed of without adjudication.
The High Court, upon a request made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, granted leave to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was rendered on the merits of any substantial question of law, as the appeals were disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the show cause notice was not ill-founded and that the writ petition was premature. The petitioner was given liberty to respond to the notice and present their case before the customs authority.
The High Court held that the first substantial question of law regarding the assessee's engagement in manufacturing was covered by a previous judgment and answered it in favour of the assessee. The second question of law regarding the calculation of loss was deemed a question of fact, not law, and therefore not answered.
The High Court held that the loss incurred in respect of the windmill could be notionally carried forward for setting off against profits in subsequent years. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment covering the same issue.
The Tribunal held that depreciation on windmills is allowable after the introduction of the 'block of assets' concept, as individual asset use is irrelevant. It also held that leasehold rights for land acquired for mining, paid as a lump sum for 30 years, constitute revenue expenditure deductible under Section 37(1).
The High Court held that disputed questions of fact and law cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. It was of the considered view that it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal.
The Court held that the petitioner had substantially complied with the conditions of the scheme, and the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate was attributable to the authorities. The CBDT's action to withdraw approval was deemed arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
The Assessing Officer, in compliance with the Tribunal's order, assessed the income at the rate of 8% of the total turnover. As a result, the assessed income matched the declared income in the return.
The High Court held that the wife's employment as a teacher did not automatically disentitle her to maintenance, especially as a single mother. The court also found the husband's income to be significantly higher than what he claimed, based on his past income tax returns and possession of a car.
The High Court quashed the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The High Court quashed the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The High Court quashed the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The High Court quashed the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal erred in deducting 1/4th of the income for personal expenses instead of 1/5th, and the compensation for loss of consortium was inadequate. The insurance company's appeal regarding contributory negligence and split multiplier was rejected.
The High Court held that the ITAT's order suffered from non-application of mind as it relied on a previous judgment without considering the facts of the case. The Court quashed the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioner's conduct unconscionable. The court doubted the claimed payment due to lack of supporting documentation and inconsistencies in the petitioner's submissions.
The High Court held that a completion certificate issued by a registered architect, in accordance with building bye-laws, is sufficient to establish project completion for Section 80-IB(10) purposes, and an occupancy certificate from the local authority is not mandatory.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding it not maintainable due to a monetary limit for appeals set by a CBDT circular. The total relief granted by the ITAT was below this limit.
The tribunal held that both the order under Section 139(9) and the assessment order under Section 144 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of proper notices. The demand notice under Section 156 was consequently quashed.
The High Court found that the Commercial Court should have first determined the issue of limitation, as it was fundamental to the entertainment of the application. The Court directed the Commercial Court to decide the limitation issue and kept execution proceedings on hold.
The High Court found that the Commercial Court should have first determined the issue of limitation, as it was fundamental to the entertainment of the application. The Court directed the Commercial Court to decide the limitation issue and kept execution proceedings on hold.
The High Court accepted the submission regarding the non-maintainability of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.
The High Court noted the submission by the appellants' counsel regarding the monetary limits for filing appeals as per a CBDT circular. Based on this submission, the Court dismissed the appeals.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the submission made by the appellants regarding the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court found the lower appellate court's order establishing an ad-hoc committee unsustainable. It held that the plaintiff should continue managing the temples with the defendant's association, and the district administration should disassociate.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the joint memorandum of settlement. The settlement involved a payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the petitioner as ex-gratia in full and final settlement of all claims.
The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no 'reason to believe' regarding escapement of income and that the notice was a clear case of change of opinion. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 was not sustained.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no 'reason to believe' any escapement of income and that the notice was a clear case of change of opinion. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was not sustained.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the submission made by the appellants' counsel regarding the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the Revenue regarding monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellant's counsel regarding the monetary limits prescribed in a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
The High Court accepted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on a submission by the appellants' counsel regarding the appeal not being maintainable due to monetary limits specified in a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellant regarding monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellant regarding monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on a submission by the appellants' counsel regarding the appeal not being maintainable due to monetary limits specified in a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellants regarding the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellants regarding monetary limits prescribed by a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellants regarding monetary limits specified in a circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not maintainable due to monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT Circular.
The High Court noted the submission by the appellants' counsel regarding the appeal not being maintainable due to monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellants regarding monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.