Loading High Court cases…
603 orders · Page 8 of 13
The tribunal held that excise duty is not incurred until the goods are removed from the premises. Therefore, it need not be included in the valuation of closing stock for excise goods not yet removed.
The High Court disposed of the appeal. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the appeal if the tax effect was found to be more than ₹1 Crore.
The High Court held that the expenditure incurred in foreign currency, reduced from export turnover, must also be reduced from total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10B. This decision was based on a Supreme Court ruling.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, following a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in a similar case. Therefore, the expenditure incurred in foreign currency, reduced from export turnover, does not need to be reduced from total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10B.
The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be attracted if the amount is paid during the next year, even if TDS was not remitted by the due date. The High Court agreed with this interpretation, citing a Supreme Court judgment.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law was answered against the revenue by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Yokogawa India Ltd. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the criminal proceedings and confiscatory proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are parallel streams and independent. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments regarding the civil nature of the transaction or delay in proceedings.
The High Court held that the issue was covered by a Supreme Court judgment and a co-ordinate bench decision. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court found that the Assessing Authority may not have considered the contractors' replies before passing the assessment order. The PCIT also disposed of the stay application without hearing the petitioner.
The High Court modified the trial court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are entitled to equal shares in Item No.1. For Items No. 3 to 5, the court ordered an inquiry into their availability and directed parties to file affidavits.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. This was done without prejudice to the Revenue's right to raise the same issues in future cases.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. This was based on a circular regarding appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. This was done without prejudice to the Revenue's right to raise the same issues in future cases.
The High Court granted the Revenue liberty to withdraw the appeal. This was in accordance with a circular regarding appeals with a low tax effect.
The High Court held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner rejecting the stay application was not a speaking order and lacked application of mind regarding the high-pitched nature of the assessment and potential hardship. The order was quashed and remitted back for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that the order rejecting the stay application was not a speaking order, lacked application of mind, and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order was quashed.
The High Court held that the order rejecting the stay application was not a speaking order and was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was quashed and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee voluntarily made a disallowance exceeding the dividend income, it met the requirements of Section 14A, and further disallowance by the AO was not warranted. The High Court found no error in the ITAT's order as the disallowance was higher than the dividend earned.
The tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo driver. The compensation awarded to one claimant was enhanced significantly due to the severity of injuries and 100% disability, while the other claimant's award was also adjusted.
The High Court, in view of the Revenue's submission, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This means the ITAT's decision remains undisturbed.
The High Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal correctly held that the assessee could continue with the completed contract method as it was consistently followed and accepted by the department in the past. The Assessing Officer was not justified in changing the method and estimating income.
The High Court held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010, is curative and retrospective in nature, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Calcutta Export Company. Consequently, the ITAT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal was correct in holding that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective. The High Court followed Supreme Court and its own previous decisions, answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law 1 to 3 were already decided in favour of the assessee by previous High Court judgments. Similarly, questions 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the assessee by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. The assessee's counsel pointed out that the tax impact was below the threshold specified in Circular No. 17/2019, making the appeal not maintainable. The Revenue did not dispute this.
The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arose for determination in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the ITAT's decision.
The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction under Section 10A. This was based on previous judgments of the same court which ruled in favor of the assessee on similar substantial questions of law.
The High Court dismissed the appeal. It accepted the assessee's contention that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax impact being below the threshold stipulated in the relevant CBDT circular.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee sought leave to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, 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 as withdrawn.
The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arose for determination in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, following a similar decision in another related appeal.
The High Court held that no substantial questions of law arose for determination in this appeal, as it was dependent on the decision in another related appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that several substantial questions of law were pure questions of fact and not appealable. It also answered other questions against the revenue, relying on Supreme Court and its own previous judgments.
The Tribunal held that for a reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, a notice under Section 143(2) must be issued within the prescribed time. Since no such notice was issued, the proceedings were vitiated. The High Court agreed, stating that the absence of a Section 143(2) notice renders the assessment ab initio void.
The High Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the plaintiff and certain defendants, granting them shares in specific properties. However, it dismissed the appeals of other defendants and held certain properties as not available for partition.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeals with liberty to seek restoration if necessary. This was based on the assessee's submission regarding the monetary limits of the appeals.
The High Court allowed the Revenue to withdraw the appeals with liberty to seek restoration if necessary. This was based on the assessee's submission regarding the monetary limits of the appeals.
The High Court reviewed and recalled its previous judgment. It directed that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of an earlier, relevant judgment concerning the disposal of appeals without pre-deposit.
The High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner's orders were passed without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and revenue entries made pursuant to them were cancelled.
The High Court found that the lower authorities had not properly examined whether the debt was offered to tax and whether the assessee had debited the doubtful debt to the profit and loss account and reduced it from the asset side of the balance sheet. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that the income arising from the sale of shares, after conversion from stock-in-trade to capital assets, should be treated as capital gains and not business income. The ITAT's order was quashed.
The High Court held that the expression 'a residential house' in Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, prior to its amendment in 2015, included the purchase of more than one residential house. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the usage of the property is crucial in determining if it's residential or commercial. It also held that two apartments in the same building should be treated as one residential unit, entitling the assessee to exemption.
The Tribunal held that leasehold improvements are revenue expenditure and ATMs are computers eligible for 60% depreciation. It also found that the assessee was entitled to change its accounting method as the revenue failed to prove distortion of profits.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding the classification of payments as royalty and the applicability of Sections 195 and 40(a) was answered in favor of the revenue. The appeal was allowed with observations regarding potential future appeals to the Apex Court and the applicability of the India-Netherlands DTAA.
The High Court held that the ITAT erred in applying Section 153(2A) as the remand was limited and intended to give effect to the Tribunal's findings. Therefore, Section 153(3) was applicable, and the assessment order was not barred by limitation.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal had already been answered by a previous bench of the High Court. The previous decision affirmed the ITAT's decision.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, following a Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal's decision that the Assessing Officer had applied their mind was upheld.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue, following a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.