Karnataka High Court Judgments — 2020

The High Court directed that the interim relief granted by the High Court would continue until the petitioners' applications for interim protection at the lower court are heard and disposed of. The lower court judge was instructed to decide these applications on their intrinsic merits without considering the High Court's interim arrangement.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law had already been decided in favor of the assessee in a previous case involving the same assessee. Therefore, the current appeal was also decided against the revenue.

The High Court held that TDS deduction on backwages paid as compensation in lieu of reinstatement is contrary to law, especially when the workman was not assessed to tax at the time of termination. The employer was directed to pay the settled amount without TDS deduction.

The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. For the reasons stated in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if occasion arose. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be formulated.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal was already answered in favour of the assessee in a previous judgment concerning the same assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law had already been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous case involving the same assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The High Court modified the compensation amounts, enhancing it for one set of claimants and reducing it for another. The court also adjusted the interest rate on the awarded compensation.

The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries, including issuing a questionnaire and examining property sale details within short periods. It was found that the Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263 powers when the Assessing Officer had a plausible view based on available material.

The High Court found that the ITAT had not adjudicated the issues on merits and had dealt with the appeal on a technical issue. Therefore, the order of the ITAT was quashed.

The Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal as the Vivad se Vishwas scheme application could not be processed due to the pending appeal. The Court granted liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.

The High Court held that the legal notice was deemed served as it was returned 'not claimed' from the correct addresses. The court found that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act was attracted and the accused failed to rebut it.

The High Court found that the ITAT had not adjudicated the appeal on merits but on a technical issue. Therefore, the High Court set aside the ITAT's order and directed it to adjudicate the appeal on the merits of the three issues raised.

The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was granted with liberty to revive the appeal if necessary, considering the assessee's application under the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Scheme.

The Tribunal failed to provide reasons for its decision, merely stating the expense was a journal entry. The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and directed it to decide the matter afresh after considering the findings of the lower authorities and the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia).

The High Court held that the offense of money laundering under the PML Act is independent of the predicate offense. It also found that the impugned order followed the procedure under Section 5 of the PML Act and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

The Tribunal had previously held that the Revenue was liable to pay interest on interest, relying on an earlier provision. The High Court acknowledged that this substantial question of law had already been decided against the Revenue in a similar case involving the same assessee.

The High Court held that the substantial question of law was already decided against the revenue in a previous case involving the same assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue is liable to pay interest on interest. The High Court, in this instance, followed a previous decision in favour of the assessee.

The High Court of Karnataka, after considering the submissions, noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to revive the appeal if the occasion so arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law or the findings of the ITAT.

The High Court took on record a memo filed by the learned counsel for the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the occasion arose. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order.

The High Court dismissed the petition primarily on grounds of delay and laches. It also noted that the petitioner's father's caste was Lingayat, making the petitioner's claim to 'Beda Jangama' unsubstantiated, and thus, dispensing with notice was justified.

The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to revive it if necessary.

The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the cognizance order, stating it was bald, unreasoned, and lacked application of mind. However, other prayers for quashing the ECIR, private complaint, and attachment order were rejected.

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law had already been decided against the revenue in a previous judgment. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to revenue expenditure and not to depreciation, which is a statutory allowance. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure, and therefore, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to revenue expenditure and not to depreciation, which is a statutory allowance on a capital asset. The High Court agreed that depreciation is not an expenditure subject to TDS provisions.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to revenue expenditure and not to depreciation, which is a statutory allowance. Depreciation is not an outgoing expenditure, and therefore, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are not attracted.

The High Court disposed of the appeal in terms of a previous judgment in ITA No.315/2012 dated 09.12.2020. The specific outcome of this judgment is not detailed in the provided text, but it implies a resolution based on prior precedent.

The High Court held that the issuance of bonus shares by capitalization of reserves is a reallocation of company funds and does not result in any inflow of fresh funds or an increase in capital employed. Therefore, Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is not attracted.

The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting the revenue liberty to revive it if the case falls within the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for appeals.

The High Court invoked its inherent powers to allow the conversion of the cross-objection into an appeal under Section 260A. This was done to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and considering the issues were covered by a previous High Court decision.

The High Court held that while there is no specific statutory provision for conversion, it can invoke inherent powers to permit such conversion to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the cross-objection was permitted to be converted into an appeal.

The High Court held that the ITAT misread a previous judgment and dealt with the reopening issue cursorily. The Court found that the ITAT's order was passed without cogent reasons and set aside the ITAT's order.

The High Court held that the creation of a reserve in the books of account is a prerequisite for claiming deductions under Section 36(1)(viia). The deductible amount is restricted to the provision created in the books during the relevant year.

The Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the bad debt claim as the assessee had written off the amount in its books and complied with Section 36(2) of the Act. The High Court followed its previous decisions and the principle of consistency in tax proceedings.

The High Court found that the Valuation Report mentioned standing trees, and the Record of Rights showed the assessees' names. However, the report did not clearly indicate if the trees were on the specific disputed land, necessitating further factual determination.

The High Court held that the ITAT misread a previous judgment and dealt with the reopening issue cursorily. The Court found that the ITAT's order was passed without cogent reasons and set aside the ITAT's order.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.

The High Court held that the confirmation order in W.P. No. 27705/2018 was passed without jurisdiction as the property initially sought to be attached was movable (advance payment), not the immovable flats. Other petitions challenging proceedings under PMLA and FEMA were dismissed.