Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 11 of 27
The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if necessary.
The High Court held that the discount given on the sale of SIM cards and recharge vouchers to distributors does not constitute 'commission' attracting Section 194H. The relationship is principal-to-principal, not principal-agent, and no income accrues to the distributor at the point of sale.
The High Court held that the discount given on the sale of SIM cards and recharge vouchers to distributors does not constitute 'commission' attracting Section 194H. The relationship is principal-to-principal, not principal-agent, and no income accrues to the distributor at the point of sale.
The High Court held that the impugned assessment order was vitiated due to the non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed in the Central Government notification. Consequently, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal directed the respondents to convene a review DPC and consider the employee's case for promotion, taking into account his previous service rendered before the transfer. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that qualifying service for promotion cannot be wiped out due to transfer.
The High Court dismissed the appeal based on a government circular setting a monetary limit for appeals. However, the substantial questions of law were left open, and liberty was granted to file a fresh appeal later if needed.
The High Court held that the discount given on the sale of SIM cards and recharge vouchers to distributors does not constitute 'commission' attracting Section 194H. The relationship is principal-to-principal, not principal-agent, and no income accrues to the distributor at the point of sale.
The tribunal held that the provisional attachment orders were cryptic, unreasoned, and non-speaking, failing to comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries. The apprehension of the revenue was also found to be unfounded.
The High Court held that the criminal complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The court found no merit in the respondents' arguments regarding typographical error or alternative appeal remedy.
The High Court set aside the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is to decide the appeals afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
The tribunal held that the provisional attachment orders were cryptic, unreasoned, and laconic, failing to comply with the mandatory requirements laid down by the Supreme Court. The apprehension of revenue loss was deemed unfounded given the petitioners' substantial immovable property.
The tribunal held that the respondent's interpretation of the application was incorrect and a clear case of non-application of mind. The impugned order was quashed.
The High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Income Tax Officer for reconsideration. The court granted the petitioner an opportunity to produce additional documents and file pleadings, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that BIAL is a statutory body, a finding previously upheld by the High Court itself. The Court also affirmed that the assessee's cargo handling services constitute development, operation, and maintenance of an infrastructure facility as per Section 80IA(4).
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties. The settlement covered custody of the child, financial arrangements, and withdrawal of other pending cases.
The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable. The court referred to a Circular dated August 8, 2019, which likely sets monetary limits for filing appeals. As the tax liability in dispute was Rs. 76,97,350/-, which presumably falls below the threshold stipulated in the circular, the appeal was deemed not maintainable. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal. However, the court granted liberty to the Revenue to prefer a fresh appeal in the future should the need arise, implying that the dismissal is on procedural grounds rather than on merits.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.
The High Court held that the impugned demands were ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable. It stated that the legislature must enact appropriate laws to authorize such demands.