Loading High Court cases…
603 orders · Page 6 of 13
The High Court held that the complainant had complied with all legal requirements and that statutory presumptions under the N.I. Act favored the complainant. The accused's defense that the cheque was given as security was not sufficiently rebutted.
The High Court disposed of the appeal. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if it falls under the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the first substantial question of law did not arise as the Tribunal examined the issue on merits. The second question was modified to direct the Assessing Officer to determine market risk adjustment afresh. The third and fourth questions were decided against the revenue.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Based on the reasons provided in the memo, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The Court took the memo on record and proceeded to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that the ITAT's order, which set aside the CIT(A)'s order, had already been upheld by the High Court in a previous related appeal. Therefore, the questions of law in the present appeal were rendered academic.
The appellants' counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to revive it later. The High Court accepted the memo and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court noted that the insertion of Section 17(4A) post-dated a Supreme Court judgment relied upon by the petitioners.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive it if necessary.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was incorrect in sustaining the denial of deduction under Section 10B. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 10B as it manufactured goods and exported them through a third party which received foreign currency. The court found that it is not necessary for the undertaking to personally export the goods.
The Tribunal rightly set aside the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) because the Director failed to record findings on the essential conditions for cancelling registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act, namely, that the activities were not genuine or not in accordance with the trust's objects.
The High Court, following its order in a related case, held that the Tribunal was correct in allowing proportionate deduction under Section 80IB. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the miscellaneous petition. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court, following a related order, answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision allowing the deduction was upheld.
The High Court held that the assessee had complied with the requirements of Section 80IB(10), including the area of residential units, the percentage of commercial area, and the project size. The court affirmed the findings of the lower appellate authorities.
The High Court accepted a compromise petition filed by both parties. The court held that the award of the Labour Court was satisfied and set aside the conviction and sentence orders.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(Appeals) to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80IB. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court, following a related order, answered the substantial questions of law against the revenue and in favor of the assessee. The court found that the appellate authorities were correct in their assessment regarding the deduction.
The High Court held that the entitlement to deduction under Section 80IB(10) concerning two specific flats depends on their allotment date (prior to or after 01.04.2010). This factual issue requires adjudication.
The Tribunal held that clauses (e) and (f) of Section 80IB(10) are prospective and apply to transactions entered into after 01.04.2010. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for deduction on unaccounted money and transactions prior to the amendment.
The High Court directed the relevant respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's applications for a factory license and a No Objection Certificate within a stipulated time frame.
The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable for issues not covered by the Section 263 notice. The CIT(A) should have adjudicated these issues on merits instead of dismissing the appeal as infructuous.
The High Court held that for Section 10A deduction, the undertaking must be separate and distinct from existing businesses, not necessarily a new company. Since the assessee's activities culminated at client sites abroad, a full-fledged Indian infrastructure wasn't required, and the undertaking was deemed independent.
The High Court noted that the ITAT had not examined whether the assessee complied with the mandatory conditions laid down in Section 72A(2) of the Income Tax Act for claiming set off of losses. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that visa charges are statutory obligations incurred for business necessity to enable employees to work abroad, not for personal benefit or leisure travel. Therefore, these expenses are not liable for fringe benefit tax.
The High Court held that the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and the issuance of a receipt and letter acknowledging the investment, establishing a legally enforceable debt. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act was not rebutted by the accused.
The High Court noted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel regarding the non-maintainability of the appeal due to Circular No.17/2019 dated 8.8.2019. The counsel sought leave to withdraw the appeal, undertaking to file a memo to that effect. The Court placed the submission on record and granted leave. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was for the Registry to keep the memo in record. No substantial questions of law were formulated or decided on merits.
The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the case. The revenue, through its standing counsel, submitted that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court due to a Circular dated 8.8.2019. Consequently, the revenue sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal. The High Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No substantial questions of law were formulated or decided, and no findings were made on the merits of the original assessment or the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission made by the Revenue's counsel regarding the non-maintainability of the appeal in light of Circular No. 17/2019. The Court granted the Revenue's request for leave to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court directed the Registry to keep the memo of withdrawal on record. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the appellate authorities were correct in their decision. The expenses incurred towards visa charges and others were not liable for fringe benefit tax as they constituted legitimate business expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in setting aside the Assessing Officer's order solely on the ground of inadequate inquiry. The High Court agreed, stating that the Assessing Officer took a plausible view based on the details provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, as there were two possible views and the Assessing Officer took one. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 powers was not justified.
The High Court held that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, supported by documentary evidence and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The accused failed to rebut this presumption with any substantial evidence.
The High Court took the memo filed by the assessee's counsel seeking leave to withdraw the appeal on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court of Karnataka took on record a memo filed by the assessee, TTK Prestige Ltd., seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were to be formulated. 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 High Court of Karnataka considered the memo filed by the assessee seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were to be formulated. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee had filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. This memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on 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.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the lorry's insurer, upholding the tribunal's finding of contributory negligence. However, the appeals filed by the claimants were partly allowed, with the court enhancing the compensation awarded in several cases.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the lorry's insurer, upholding the tribunal's finding of contributory negligence. However, the appeals filed by the claimants were partly allowed, with the court enhancing the compensation awarded in several cases.
The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. This was based on a CBDT circular stating that appeals with a tax effect below ₹1 Crore are not maintainable.
The Tribunal correctly held that the amended provision of the DTAA, which reduced the tax rate on royalties and fees for technical services to 10%, was applicable for the entire fiscal year. This substitution effectively repealed the old provision and introduced the new one.
The Tribunal correctly held that the Assessing Officer had no locus standi to re-examine the activities of a trust already granted exemption under Section 11. It was also held that provision for bad and doubtful debts is a necessary charge as per accounting principles and should be allowed as expenditure.
The High Court held that under Section 209(1)(d) as it existed prior to the Finance Act, 2012, an assessee was entitled to a tax credit for amounts deductible at source, irrespective of whether it was actually deducted. Therefore, if the payer defaulted in deducting tax, the non-resident was not liable for advance tax or interest under Section 234B.
The High Court held that under Section 209(1)(d) as it existed prior to the Finance Act, 2012, an assessee was entitled to a tax credit for amounts deductible at source, irrespective of whether it was actually deducted. Therefore, if the payer defaulted in deducting tax, the non-resident was not liable for advance tax or interest under Section 234B.
The High Court found that the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) required factual adjudication and had been raised belatedly. Therefore, the court quashed the Tribunal's order.
The High Court disposed of the appeal with liberty to the revenue to revive it if the tax effect is indeed above Rs. 1 Crore. This was based on conflicting submissions regarding the tax effect.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. The matter was concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which were based on a meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record. The Court noted that the assessee is a registered STP unit recognized as a 100% export-oriented unit for IT-enabled services, including back office/remote data entry. The CBDT Notification No. 890 dated 26.09.2000, which is clarificatory, specifies that IT-enabled products or services like Back Office Operations and Data processing are covered under Explanation 2(i)(b) of Section 10A. The assessee's activities of preparing and finalizing patent applications, involving data processing and use of IT, fall within the scope of these services. The Court also observed that the revenue itself had granted similar benefits for AY 2003-04 under Section 80HHE, which is pari materia to Section 10A. The revenue failed to point out any perversity in the concurrent findings of fact, nor was perversity raised in the memo of appeal or argued before the court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The High Court found the accused's defence inconsistent and lacking cogent evidence. It held that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused by not properly appreciating the evidence and the presumptions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.