Loading High Court cases…
603 orders · Page 2 of 13
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 Tribunal dismissed the Review Petition because the Revenue could not furnish the necessary documents to prove their case fell under the exception. Liberty was again granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the order upon obtaining the required documents.
The High Court held that the expenses incurred towards research and development were not capital in nature. It also found the disallowance made under Section 14A to be incorrect.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in the same terms as a previous judgment, directing the Assessing Officer to decide the issues in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court on related matters.
The High Court held that research and development expenses are revenue in nature and should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37, irrespective of the capital nature of the grant received. The Court also found that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction for invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
The High Court held that research and development expenses are revenue in nature and should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37, irrespective of the capital nature of the grant received. The Court also found that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction for invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
The High Court answered most of the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee, relying on previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments. However, one question of law was not pressed by the assessee.
The High Court found that the tribunal had not considered a relevant High Court decision and had relied on a coordinate bench's decision without proper reasoning. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.
The High Court held that the first four substantial questions of law were already decided in favour of the assessee by previous High Court decisions. The fifth substantial question of law was also answered in favour of the assessee based on existing legal precedents.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision on most issues, relying on its own previous judgments in favor of the assessee and Supreme Court decisions. However, one issue regarding depreciation on software was remanded to the ITAT for fresh consideration.
The High Court disposed of the appeal in the same terms as another related appeal (ITA No. 464/2017). The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in pending appeals.
The High Court held that once the reassessment order was set aside as being without jurisdiction, the Tribunal ought not to have adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter should not have been remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court held that once the reassessment order was set aside as being without jurisdiction, the Tribunal should not have adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter should not have been remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court held that notional rent cannot be taxed on a building under construction before the issuance of an occupancy certificate. The findings of the revenue authorities were considered perverse.
The High Court noted that the AO had passed an order in favour of the assessee pursuant to the ITAT's remand order. Therefore, the substantial question of law in the appeal became academic.
The High Court did not answer the substantial questions of law. The appeal was disposed of for reasons assigned in a related judgment, without delving into the merits of the ITAT's decision.
The High Court held that the provision for filing revised returns existed and that once a revised return is filed, it substitutes the original return. The court also found that the rejection of rectification applications was beyond the statutory time limit, making the orders passed without jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the provision for filing revised returns existed and that once a revised return is filed, it substitutes the original return. The court also found that the rejection of rectification applications was beyond the statutory time limit, making the orders passed without jurisdiction.
The tribunal held that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the amount. The accused successfully proved his defence that the cheque was misused, despite the trial court's erroneous finding on notice service.
The High Court held that the assessee was engaged in money lending business, as evidenced by its Memorandum of Association and past assessments. The Court found that the Tribunal overlooked this fact and also failed to examine the alternative claim under Section 37(1) and the issue under Section 14A. The Court quashed the Tribunal's order on these points.
The High Court held that the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways have the force of law and are binding. The courts below were justified in refusing to permit the new petrol bunk within the prohibited distance.
The High Court noted that the tribunal's reliance on its earlier decision was subsequently set aside by the same court. The court found that the Assessing Officer's finding of the assessee's failure to substantiate the claim was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee failed to demonstrate accrued liability was contrary to the material on record. The Court held that the materials produced by the assessee needed factual adjudication in light of Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court held that the assessee was not involved in manufacturing and was formed by splitting up an existing company, thus not satisfying the requirements of Section 10B. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the disallowance of the claim under Section 10B. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the disallowance of the Section 10B claim. The substantial question of law was answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The lower courts' findings of guilt and conviction were upheld, finding no reason to interfere.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee sought leave to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The Court held that the applicant had no locus standi to file the application and had engaged in abuse of process by filing multiple petitions on the same cause of action. The applicant's claims had also been rejected by regulatory authorities.
The High Court followed its decision in a related case and answered the substantial question of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal was found to have no merit.
The High Court held that the output generated by the assessee in the form of research and chemical compounds amounts to manufacture/production of articles or things. It also noted that the revenue did not assail the finding that Unit-II was a distinct unit and not formed by splitting up.
The tribunal held that the payments made for reimbursement of costs incurred by a non-resident enterprise for seconded employees were not liable for TDS under Section 195. Consequently, the assessee could not be treated as an 'assessee in default'.
The High Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The court modified the trial court's decree regarding the share in one of the properties.
The High Court held that the payments made by the assessee to Abbey National Plc, UK were not liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee could not be held as an 'assessee in default'.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the CIT's order under Section 263. The court reiterated that for Section 263 to apply, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial, and if two views are possible, the CIT cannot interfere if the Assessing Officer took one of them.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were already answered against the revenue in a previous judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets. The Court found that clauses in the lease agreement were similar to those in a Supreme Court precedent, I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, which allowed depreciation claims for lessors.
The Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on intangible assets, including goodwill, as it is considered an asset under Section 32(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court's decision in SMIFS Securities Ltd. was relied upon.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to carry forward losses under Section 72. The High Court concurred, stating that the requirement to file a declaration under Section 10B(8) by a specific date was directory, not mandatory, as long as it was filed before the assessment was completed.
The High Court held that a writ petition against a Bar Association, even if a private society, is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found that such associations discharge obligations of a public character and that the actions complained of shocked the judicial conscience.
The High Court held that the impugned amendment ordinance and rules were retrospective in nature. It also found that the notices for the no-confidence motion were valid and not in violation of the Act or Rules.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding on the functional dissimilarity of comparables was a finding of fact. The court also noted that the revenue had not demonstrated perversity in these findings.
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 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 High Court, based on a memo filed by the assessee seeking to withdraw the appeal, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the leave to withdraw the appeal for the reasons stated in the memo.
The High Court held that the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the impugned amendment ordinance and rules were retrospective in nature. It also found that the notices for the no-confidence motion were valid and not in violation of the Act or Rules.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered against the revenue in previous judgments by the same court. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue lacked merit.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered against the revenue in previous judgments by the same court. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue lacked merit.
The High Court held that the appellate authorities were correct in allowing depreciation on intangible assets. The court answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.