Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 13 of 27
The Tribunal was justified in holding that lease equalization charges, being a provision for diminution in the value of an asset, should be added back to the book profit under Section 115JA(2)(g) of the Act, especially given its retrospective application.
The High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in denying regularization as the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the government memorandum and the Supreme Court's judgment in Uma Devi. Furthermore, the department had stopped engaging casual labourers directly after 2005, relying on contractors.
The High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in denying regularization as the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the government memorandum and the Supreme Court's judgment in Uma Devi. Furthermore, the department had stopped engaging casual labourers directly after 2005, relying on contractors.
The High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in denying regularization as the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the government memorandum and the Supreme Court's judgment in Uma Devi. Furthermore, the department had stopped engaging casual labourers directly after 2005, relying on contractors.
The High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in denying regularization as the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the government memorandum and the Supreme Court's judgment in Uma Devi. Furthermore, the department had stopped engaging casual labourers directly after 2005, relying on contractors.
The High Court, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence, held that payments for software licenses are not royalty. Therefore, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source.
The High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in denying regularization as the petitioners did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the government memorandum and the Supreme Court's judgment in Uma Devi. Furthermore, the department had stopped engaging casual labourers directly after 2005, relying on contractors.
The High Court quashed the ITAT's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. This was to be done after considering all available material on record.
The High Court found that the Tribunal, in reversing the CIT(A)'s order, failed to consider crucial documentary evidence like ledger reports and agreements. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.
The High Court held that it should not entertain the appeal as the main appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was still pending. The Tribunal's decision on the appellant's claim as a 'person interested' was yet to be adjudicated.
The High Court permitted M/s NSS to operate its current account to deposit a specified sum with interest into judicial deposit in one of the suits. The court also allowed M/s NSS to make an application to utilize funds for municipal taxes, subject to further adjudication in the civil suits.
The High Court permitted M/s NSS to operate its current account to deposit a specified sum with interest into judicial deposit in one of the suits. The court also allowed M/s NSS to make an application to utilize funds for municipal taxes, subject to further adjudication in the civil suits.
The High Court granted the appellant three weeks' time as a last indulgence to cure defects in the appeal filing. It was stated that failure to do so would result in the appeal being dismissed without further reference to the Court.
The High Court noted that a memo for withdrawal of the appeal was filed. The Court accepted the memo and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. Liberty was granted to the appellants to approach the Court again if the need arises in the future. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court noted that a memo for withdrawal of the appeal was filed by the appellants. Consequently, the Court accepted the memo and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The Court granted liberty to the appellants to approach the Court again if the need arises in the future. The specific issues that were to be decided by the Tribunal, and the arguments of the parties on those issues, were not addressed as the appeal was withdrawn.
The High Court noted the submission regarding the settlement under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal failed to consider the assessee's claim regarding fringe benefits on merits. Therefore, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.
The High Court noted that the dispute had been amicably settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.
The High Court of Karnataka, in view of the submission made by the assessee's counsel, has dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee's counsel had pointed out that a co-ordinate bench of the High Court had dismissed the revenue's appeal in a related matter (ITA No.91/2015) by a judgment dated 26.07.2021. Based on this submission, the assessee sought permission to withdraw its own appeal. The court granted this request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Crucially, the court also granted the assessee the liberty to agitate the issue involved in the appeal in appropriate proceedings, if the occasion arises. No decision on the merits of the substantial question of law was made.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered in favour of the assessee by previous judgments of the same court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal had already been decided in favour of the assessee by previous judgments of the same court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
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 Tribunal erred in not properly examining the assessee's eligibility for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) and in failing to consider binding High Court decisions regarding NPA interest. The Tribunal also failed to adjudicate certain grounds raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was governed by different Acts and Rules, thus not required to follow Schedule VI of the Companies Act. Consequently, Section 115JB could not be invoked against the assessee.
The High Court held that the Sessions Court correctly appreciated the evidence, finding that the complainant failed to prove the loan transaction and the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The difference in ink and handwriting on the cheque supported the accused's defence of issuing a blank signed cheque.
The High Court held that the assessee should not suffer due to the inadvertence of her Chartered Accountant and that a sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay. The Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal was quashed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered in favour of the assessee by prior judgments of the Court. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were already answered in favour of the assessee by its previous judgments. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were already answered in favour of the assessee by previous judgments of the same court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal were already answered in favour of the assessee by previous judgments of the Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The assessee's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court granted this permission with the liberty to contest the issue for subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that no benefit was accrued to the assessee from the remission of liability, as the adjustment of dues and debts resulted in a loss for the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of Section 41(1) were not attracted.
The High Court accepted the memo for withdrawal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to file a fresh appeal or take recourse to other legal remedies if the need arises in the future. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
The High Court held that the original order of the District Commission had merged entirely with the appellate order of the State Commission. Therefore, the execution petition filed to enforce the original order was not maintainable.
The High Court held that an expert body like the CCI should not be crippled by technical rules of procedure and that the investigation process cannot be stopped at this stage. The court found no merit in the argument that the CCI order would harm business reputation.
The Tribunal noted that the respondents had issued an order promoting the complainants notionally, subject to the outcome of pending Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. The complainants did not dispute this compliance.
The High Court dismissed the appeals. The court considered the tax effect in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and found that the cases were not covered under paragraph 10 of the circular.
The High Court dismissed the appeals. The court considered the tax effect in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and found that the cases were not covered under paragraph 10 of the circular.
The High Court held that the petitioners had not made out a case for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel the excise authorities to change the name on the license. The court found that the applications lacked merit.
The High Court held that the petitioners had not made out a case for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel the excise authorities to change the name on the license. The court found that the applications lacked merit.
The High Court held that expenditure incurred for an illegal business or in contravention of law, as per Explanation 1 to Section 37(1), is not deductible. It also noted that payments exceeding the limit made otherwise than by crossed cheque are disallowable under Section 40A(3).
The High Court held that expenditure incurred for an illegal business or in contravention of law, as per Explanation 1 to Section 37(1), is not deductible. It also noted that payments exceeding the limit made otherwise than by crossed cheque are disallowable under Section 40A(3).
The High Court reviewed its previous order. It delinked ITA No. 100070/2016 from the earlier order and directed it to be listed separately for hearing on merits. The order concerning ITA No. 100207/2015 remained undisturbed.
The High Court held that both lower courts had recorded concurrent findings of fact after appreciating the evidence. The defendant's failure to reply to the legal notice and the dishonor of a cheque issued by him were significant factors against his defense.
The High Court held that the findings of fact by the lower authorities, including the addition for peak cash deficit, were not perverse. The assessee's inability to explain the cash difference supported the addition made.
The High Court held that expenditure incurred for an illegal business or in contravention of law, as per Explanation 1 to Section 37(1), is not deductible. It also noted that payments exceeding the limit made otherwise than by crossed cheque are disallowable under Section 40A(3).
The High Court quashed the proceedings related to the first complaint and FIR, finding it to be a civil dispute. However, it dismissed the petition regarding the second complaint and FIR, which alleged forgery and cheating based on further developments.
The High Court held that the amendments were essential for adjudicating the suits, as they arose from the defendants' written statements and were sought before the commencement of trial. The court found an error in the lower courts' orders for not considering the plausible explanation for the delay and for not allowing a mini-trial on document genuineness at that stage.
The High Court accepted the memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to approach the High Court again if the need arose in the future. No decision on the merits of the case was made.
The High Court noted that a memo had been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was that the assessee had approached the Income Tax Department under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court accepted the memo and accordingly dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The appellant was granted liberty to approach the High Court again if the need arose in the future. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the original ITAT order.