Loading High Court cases…
327 orders · Page 5 of 7
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.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel 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 appellants regarding monetary limits prescribed by a circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on a submission by the appellants 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 non-maintainability of the appeal due to monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the appellant's counsel regarding 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's counsel regarding monetary limits as per a CBDT circular.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding the appeal not being maintainable due to monetary limits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not maintainable due to monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court accepted the submission of the appellants' counsel regarding the non-maintainability of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on this ground.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on the submission that the appeal fell outside the 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 court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court accepted the submission regarding the monetary limits. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court accepted the submission regarding the non-maintainability of the appeal 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' counsel regarding the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court noted that the appeal was not maintainable due to monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. This was based on the submission made by the appellants' counsel regarding the monetary limits prescribed by a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
The High Court disposed of the present appeal in terms of a previous order dated 14.09.2018. This previous order had remanded the matter for consideration by the Assessing Officer.
The High Court noted the submission by the appellants' counsel regarding the appeal not being maintainable due to monetary limits specified in a CBDT circular. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission 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 monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that a memo was filed in the Court on the day of the hearing. Based on this memo, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision on the merits of the case was made. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the appeal being withdrawn.
The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limits prescribed by circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the appeal is not maintainable. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) regarding the monetary limits stipulated in Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as such, without delving into the merits of the case or the specific tax implications. No specific findings were made on the substantive issues that might have been raised before the ITAT, as the appeal was disposed of on a preliminary procedural ground.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, comprising Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue). The appellant's counsel submitted that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed by Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Director (ITJ), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. In light of this submission, the Court found the appeal to be not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as such, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's order or the substantive issues of the assessment year 2004-2005. No specific finding was made on the substantive tax dispute.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. This was to be done after considering all available material on record.
The High Court accepted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable. This decision was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants (revenue) themselves, stating that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the monetary limits prescribed by Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The circular likely stipulates a threshold amount below which appeals should not be filed or pursued by the revenue. Since the revenue conceded to the non-maintainability based on this circular, the High Court found no reason to proceed with the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the revenue must adhere to the monetary limits set by CBDT circulars, and if the revenue itself acknowledges non-compliance, the appeal will be dismissed on that ground. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the grounds of not meeting the monetary limits.
The High Court accepted the submission of the Revenue's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were covered by previous judgments of the same court. These judgments were in favour of the assessee, addressing both the Section 14A disallowance and the depreciation on investments.
The Tribunal held that the decision in R.C.Gupta's case would benefit the petitioners. It directed the KSRTC Employees Contributory Provident Fund Trust to collect the balance contribution along with accrued interest from the employees and forward it to the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within six months.
The appellants' counsel filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal with liberty to challenge the impugned order by filing a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in view of a memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The appellants' counsel filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal. The High Court, in terms of the memo, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The appellants' counsel filed a memo seeking to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a writ petition. The Court, in terms of the memo, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the guidance value is an appropriate mode to determine the full value of consideration in cases where it is not ascertainable. The Tribunal's adoption of guidance value was not considered perverse or arbitrary.
The High Court of Karnataka, comprising Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Ashok S. Kinagi, ordered the dismissal of the appeal as being infructuous, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The court did not delve into the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No specific issues were decided on their merits, and no ratio decidendi for future citation was established beyond the procedural dismissal.
The High Court held that the contract was for the sale of advertising space and not a contract for work, therefore Section 194C was not applicable. The orders of the Commissioner and the Tribunal were set aside.
The tribunal held that to treat someone as a Principal Officer, there must be substantial material establishing their connection with the management or administration of the company. This basis must be reflected in the notice issued.
The High Court of Karnataka, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue), held that the appeal was not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as such. The court did not delve into any substantial questions of law or the merits of the assessment year 2006-2007. The dismissal was based solely on the grounds of monetary limits and the CBDT circular cited by the Revenue.
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 and the CBDT's Circular No. 17 of 2019.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in declaring the proviso to Rule 5(1A) invalid, as the Tribunal cannot declare provisions of the Act or Rules invalid. However, due to a Supreme Court decision, no relief could be granted to the Revenue.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in declaring the proviso to Rule 5(1A) invalid, as the Tribunal cannot declare provisions of the Act or Rules invalid. However, due to a Supreme Court decision, no relief could be granted to the Revenue.