Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 10 of 27
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were squarely covered by the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. Consequently, the questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as academic and infructuous based on the memo filed by the assessee.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were squarely covered by the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The revenue could not dispute this position.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were squarely covered by the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The revenue could not dispute this position.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals were squarely covered by the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited. The revenue could not dispute this position.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the substantial questions of law were identical to a previous judgment concerning the same assessee. The court declined to differ from its own coordinate bench's decision.
The High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order within three months. The court acknowledged the respondent's submission that they would consider the representation if given reasonable time.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court held that foreign exchange loss is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) if linked to business working capital. However, the matter of bad debts was remanded for reconsideration in light of a Supreme Court judgment, and R&D expenses were also remanded due to lack of material evidence.
The High Court noted that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal did not pertain to the ITAT order under challenge. Instead, they related to other pending appeals filed by the revenue.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court found the Tribunal's orders to be perverse and lacking application of mind, particularly its handling of miscellaneous petitions. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
The High Court held that since possession of the land was taken, the State Government could not have invoked Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to de-notify it. Consequently, the impugned de-notification notification was declared illegal and quashed.
The High Court held that the delay in filing the return for AY 2004-05 was an error apparent on the record, justifying the rectification under Section 154. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek condonation of delay before the competent authority.
The High Court answered substantial question of law No. 1 in favour of the revenue, and questions 2 to 7 in favour of the assessee. The appeals were disposed of based on these answers.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as per the petitioners' memo. It also directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider defreezing bank accounts and to deal with any delay in appeal appropriately.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the appellants had filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was that the tax effect, amounting to Rs.91,77,202/-, was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No.3/2018, as amended by Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court ordered that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The Court noted that the CBDT had issued a notification extending exemption to the petitioner retrospectively from 01.06.2011. Consequently, the basis for the reassessment proceedings had become infructuous.
The Karnataka High Court noted that the CBDT had issued a notification extending exemption to the petitioner retrospectively from 01.06.2011. Consequently, the reason for initiating the reassessment proceedings had become infructuous.
The High Court held that the surplus from shareholders' account should be consolidated with policyholders' account for taxation as income from insurance business. It also held that losses from pension funds, even if exempt under Section 10(23AAB), are allowable for set-off and carry forward under Section 44 read with the First Schedule.
The High Court held that the lower court erred in deeming the perjury application premature. It found a specific finding of falsity in the wife's statements based on undisputed income tax returns, and that such applications should be considered on merits promptly.
The High Court held that the surplus from shareholders' account should be consolidated with policyholders' account for taxation as income from insurance business. It also held that losses from pension funds, even if exempt under Section 10(23AAB), are allowable for set-off and carry forward under Section 44 read with the First Schedule.
The High Court held that the show cause notice was issued without jurisdiction as it was not initiated by the competent authority as per the prescribed rules. The Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement can only initiate proceedings based on a reference from the District Caste Verification Committee.
The Tribunal correctly held that the surplus from the shareholder account should be aggregated with the surplus from the policyholder account for computing profits under Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee was solely engaged in life insurance business.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised in the appeal had already been decided in favour of the assessee by a previous judgment of the same court. Consequently, the ITAT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal rightly dismissed the revenue's miscellaneous petition as there was no apparent mistake on record. The revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's earlier order allowing unabsorbed depreciation was not challenged, and the issue was debatable.
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act was available. The petitioner was given liberty to file the revision petition.
The High Court held that the re-computation of transfer pricing adjustment did not constitute a fresh assessment or reassessment in its entirety. Therefore, Section 244A(1A) was applicable for the delayed refund.
The High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law concerning the allowance of excess depreciation. The specific question revolved around whether Section 32(1)(ii) read with Rule 5 was properly considered.
The High Court held that the Tribunal and CIT(A) were correct in allowing the claim for excess depreciation. The question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the provisions of the 1966 Act are neither repugnant to the 2013 Act nor have they been impliedly repealed. The 1966 Act was considered a special law and the 2013 Act a general law, and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was found not applicable to proceedings under the 1966 Act.
The High Court found that the applicability of the percentage completion method required fair adjudication on facts. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The High Court noted that the learned counsel for the assessee filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn in terms of the memo. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the income earned from the complex commercial activity of letting out the building along with other amenities in an industrial park should be treated as business income, not income from house property. Consequently, the disallowance of related expenses was also set aside.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already decided in favor of the assessee by a previous judgment of the same court. Consequently, the ITAT's order was quashed.
The Tribunal failed to adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee and the revenue, particularly concerning the claim for exemption under Section 54F. The impugned order was quashed.
The High Court held that the valuation report obtained from a Registered Valuer was invalid as per the Wealth Tax Act and Rules. The Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation to a District Valuation Officer.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were to be answered in favor of the assessee. This was based on previous judgments of the High Court on similar issues.
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. This decision was based on the fact that the tax effect was less than Rupees One Crore and no permission had been granted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to file the appeal, as stipulated by Circular No. 23 of 2019 dated 6th September 2019. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. However, the court granted liberty to the appellants to file a fresh appeal if they obtain the necessary permission from the CBDT as per the aforementioned circular. No substantive issues were decided on merits.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered in favour of the assessee in previous judgments by the same court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue lacked merit.
The High Court accepted the memo for withdrawal filed by the appellant. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the appellant to revive the appeal if the need arises. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that were intended to be raised.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the same information available during the original assessment, constituting a mere change of opinion. The High Court agreed that reassessment cannot be based on a change of opinion and that the survey did not yield new tangible material.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law regarding the applicability of Section 115JB was already decided in favour of the assessee by a previous judgment of the same court.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction to invoke Section 14A. It also noted that no exempt income was earned as the partnership firm incurred a loss. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer regarding the use of borrowed funds for investment.