Loading High Court cases…
603 orders · Page 11 of 13
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, subject to other legal exceptions.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies and are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies and are thus entitled to the benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies and are eligible for the benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies and are eligible for the benefit under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered cooperative societies and are eligible for benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order was quashed based on this principle.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are co-operative societies and thus entitled to the benefits of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court modified the award, enhancing the compensation by Rs. 80,000/- primarily for parental and filial consortium. The court found no reason to enhance the income assessed by the Tribunal or other heads of compensation.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P, subject to other provisions.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies and are entitled to the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are co-operative societies and thus entitled to the benefit under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court granted the same relief as in the prior similar case.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered cooperative societies under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P, subject to other legal exceptions.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim the benefit under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered cooperative societies and are eligible for the benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered cooperative societies. Therefore, they are entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court held that entities registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, are considered co-operative societies and are therefore entitled to claim benefits under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by requesting the Appellate Authority to take up the petitioner's appeal for consideration within a period of six months. All contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition. It found that the company had an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal and that the issue of jurisdiction was a question of fact not suitable for writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the writ petition. The court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to challenge the assessment order passed during the pendency of the petition.
The High Court held that the first substantial question of law was covered by a previous judgment, and the second substantial question of law was also covered by another judgment in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding Section 36(1)(viiia) was answered by a previous judgment of the court. Similarly, issues concerning Section 14A were also covered by a prior judgment, with the substantial questions of law being answered in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is limited to the amount actually provided for in the books. The Court referred to a previous judgment that covered the substantial questions of law raised.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding Section 36(1)(viiia) was answered by a previous judgment. Similarly, questions related to Section 14A and Rule 8D were also answered by prior judgments in favor of the assessee.
The High Court, based on previous judgments and submissions by counsel, answered substantial questions of law 1(a) and 1(b) in favor of the assessee. Question 2 was answered in terms of another judgment, and questions 4 and 5 were rendered academic.
The High Court decided the substantial questions of law based on previous judgments of the same court. The appeal was disposed of in terms of those prior decisions.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding Section 36(1)(viiia) was answered by a previous judgment of the court. Similarly, the issues related to Section 14A were also decided based on prior rulings.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's decisions on accrued interest, depreciation on investments, and provision for wage arrears were justified. The court relied on its own previous judgments and decisions of other High Courts in favor of the assessee.
The High Court answered the second and third substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee, as they were covered by previous judgments. The first question was answered in favor of the assessee because the Assessing Officer did not provide a basis for the expenditure related to exempt income when invoking Section 14A.
The High Court found that the ITAT's order was cryptic and lacked application of mind, as it failed to consider the evidence placed by the assessee and did not provide proper reasoning for its conclusions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the ITAT for a fresh decision.
The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The court found that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the amount and did not adequately plead the nature and date of the transaction.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Circular regarding monetary limits for appeals was applicable to pending proceedings. This was based on previous High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The High Court held that the circular regarding monetary limits was applicable to pending appeals, citing previous judgments. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a circular regarding monetary limits for appeals was applicable to pending matters. This decision was based on previous High Court and Supreme Court judgments affirming the prospective applicability of such circulars.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, following a previous decision by a coordinate bench. The dismissal was based on monetary limits fixed by a circular, which was held to be applicable to pending proceedings.
The High Court noted that a memo of withdrawal had been filed by the counsel for the appellant. Taking the memo on record, the Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case or the substantial question of law that the appellant intended to raise. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the appeal based on the withdrawal memo.
The High Court held that Circular No.17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, is applicable to pending proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
The High Court held that the lease agreement was a fraudulent and dishonest transaction, void ab initio, and not at arm's length. The lower court's decision to dismiss the application on grounds of limitation was deemed erroneous.
The High Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' bids was justified as they failed to upload the required authorization from the Pollution Control Board. The court also found that the awarded bidder had sufficiently demonstrated their experience.
The High Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' bids was justified as they failed to upload the required authorization from the Pollution Control Board. The court also found that the awarded bidder had sufficiently demonstrated their experience.
The High Court held that the rejection of the petitioners' bids was justified as they failed to upload the required authorization from the Pollution Control Board. The court also found that the awarded bidder had sufficiently demonstrated their experience.
The High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Assessing Officer to pass consequential orders based on the judgment in related civil appeals pending before the Supreme Court. The specific outcome of the ITAT's decision on TDS deductibility was not directly affirmed or overturned by this High Court order.
The High Court found that the assessment order was based on a mistaken belief that the petitioner had not provided an explanation, when in fact, a reply had been filed. The court also noted a violation of natural justice and non-application of mind.
The High Court held that the amended provision of Section 21 of the Act, which mandates a minimum pre-deposit of 25%, was applicable as the DRAT considered the waiver application in 2017. The court found the DRAT's order to be just and proper, considering the long pendency of recovery proceedings and the petitioners' failure to adduce evidence.