Loading High Court cases…
1,346 orders · Page 14 of 27
The High Court held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular dated 08.08.2019. Consequently, both appeals were disposed of.
The High Court held that the show-cause notice issued by the Additional Director General of DRI was invalid as he was not a 'proper officer' under the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Original was set aside.
The High Court quashed the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the initiation of proceedings under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The court's decision was based on reasons provided in a related judgment.
The Tribunal held that IISc employees are not Central Government employees for perquisite valuation. The High Court agreed, stating that while IISc might be controlled by the Central Government, it is not the Central Government itself for the purpose of Rule 3.
The High Court disposed of the appeal, granting the revenue liberty to revive it if the case falls under the exceptions of the CBDT circular. The substantial questions of law were kept open for future adjudication.
The High Court held that while CFTRI is controlled by the Central Government, it is not the Central Government itself, and therefore, the specific rule for valuation of perquisites for accommodation provided by the Central Government (Sl.No.1 of Table-1 of Rule 3) does not apply. However, the court also held that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) was not justified due to the assessee's bonafide belief in its interpretation.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the reasons for dismissal were the same as those provided in a related judgment (I.T.A.No.277/2015). This implies the court did not find merit in IISc's arguments regarding its status and the applicability of government employee rules.
The High Court held that the compensation paid was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the transfer of an asset and is therefore deductible under Section 48 of the Act. The findings of the lower authorities were considered perverse.
The High Court held that exports made through third parties are considered deemed exports and are eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The Tribunal's order was set aside as it failed to consider relevant High Court precedents.
The High Court noted the assessee's submission regarding the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as nothing further survived for adjudication.
The High Court took the memo on record and consequently dismissed the appeal. The tribunal's order, therefore, remains undisturbed by this High Court decision.
The High Court took the memo seeking withdrawal on record. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court took the memo on record and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee's counsel filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The High Court took the memo on record and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The High Court took the memo on record. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the court.
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.
The High Court took the memo on record. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court.
The High Court took the memo on record and consequently dismissed the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee.
The High Court took the memo on record. The Court then proceeded to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee.
The High Court took the memo on record and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the court.
The High Court held that the assessee had complied with the conditions stipulated under Section 54F of the Act. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption due to payments made prior to the transfer date was considered perverse.
The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, did not decide the merits of the case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court took the memo on record and accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. No finding was given on the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Court noted that Sections 79A and B of the KLR Act were omitted, and pending proceedings were clarified to abate.
The High Court observed that the learned counsel for the appellants (Revenue) submitted that the proposed questions of law do not arise for consideration from out of the impugned order. The Revenue sought liberty to urge these questions of law in a subsequent appeal, ITA No.212/2021. In light of this submission, the High Court disposed of the present appeal by holding that the proposed questions of law do not arise for consideration in this appeal. Liberty was expressly reserved for the revenue to urge these questions of law in the subsequent appeal filed in ITA No.212/2021. No finding was given on the merits of the case.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed were covered by a previous judgment of the same court. Therefore, the questions of law were answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
The High Court set aside the impugned orders relating to recovery proceedings. This was done in light of the Apex Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which had set aside the orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for the petitioners.
The High Court of Karnataka did not decide the appeal on its merits. The learned counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the respondent had already preferred an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the present appeal was disposed of. The Court granted liberty to the department to approach the Court again in the future if the need arises. No specific findings were made on the substantive issues of the appeal, and no ratio decidendi was established. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
The High Court of Karnataka considered a memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) seeking leave to withdraw the appeal. The memo was placed on record. For the reasons assigned in the memo, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the Court granted liberty to the assessee to revive the appeal if the occasion arises in the future. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law or the merits of the ITAT's order.
The High Court held that since there was no original assessment order and only an intimation under Section 143(1), the reassessment proceedings were the first assessment. Therefore, the assessee's claim for loss on sale of securities should have been considered afresh.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already decided in favour of the assessee in previous similar appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered in favor of the assessee by a previous judgment. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot raise a fresh claim during assessment proceedings under Section 153A as it is not a de novo assessment. The disallowance under Section 14A was also upheld.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law were already answered in favour of the assessee by a previous judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred for business purposes and was allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, as it was not capital expenditure, personal expenditure, or covered by other specific sections. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning.
The High Court took on record the submission made by the petitioner's representative. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of credit card, business development, and foreign travel expenses due to lack of sufficient evidence provided by the assessee. The court found no infirmity in the findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities.
The High Court held that substantial questions of law 1, 3, and 4 were already decided in favour of the assessee in previous judgments. Other questions of law were left open as they were subject to other pending appeals.
The High Court held that the first substantial question of law concerning the disallowance of software purchase payments is answered in favor of the assessee, following a Supreme Court decision. The other questions were left open.
The High Court modified the award, recalculating the monthly income by excluding certain deductions and increasing the compensation. The split multiplier argument was rejected, and the interest rate was reduced.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal had already been answered in favour of the assessee by its previous judgments. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the ALP for royalty payment cannot be determined as NIL, as the payment was for the use of technical know-how. The Tribunal also affirmed that the TPO's jurisdiction is limited to determining ALP and does not extend to examining the allowability of expenses under Section 37.
The tribunal found the accident was due to the rider's negligence and awarded compensation. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation amount by recalculating dependency, future prospects, and other heads.
The High Court noted that the respondent, M/s. Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd., had informed the Court that the dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. A memo to this effect was filed and accepted by the Court. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of based on this settlement. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the original tax dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as settled.
The High Court held that income earned through onsite software development by an associated enterprise on behalf of the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A of the Act. This decision was based on a previous judgment by a coordinate bench for an earlier assessment year.
The High Court held that the substantial questions of law should be answered in favour of the assessee, following a Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the payments for software procurement were not to be treated as royalty taxable in India.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A. The court followed its previous judgment which held that Section 14A cannot be invoked unless there is receipt of exempted income.
The High Court held that the assessee, as the owner of the leased assets, is entitled to claim depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.
The High Court held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is limited to the actual provision made in the books. However, the 7.5% deduction of total income should be computed before setting off brought forward losses.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed after the death of the assessee is a nullity. However, the High Court held that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act provides for continuation of proceedings against legal representatives and that the death of the assessee does not abate the proceedings.
The High Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute had been amicably settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas' scheme. Placing this submission on record, the Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law that the appellant had intended to formulate. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.